6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Heck v. Adamsongreen2 sentences2015See Heck, supra note 1 , 941 A.2d at 1030 n. 1 ("[L ]is pendens is still only a notice; unlike a lien, a person obtains no new property interest through the operation of the lis pendens doctrine.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 22 . 2015See Heck, supra note 1 , 941 A.2d at 1030 n. 1 ("[L ]is pendens is still only a notice; unlike a lien, a person obtains no new property interest through the operation of the lis pendens doctrine.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 22 . | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2014Bloom claims that the court erred by imposing a sanction of $32,775 in attorney’s fees for hours spent litigating the lis pendens claim, alleging that sanctions are only appropriate when “patently clear that a claim has absolutely no chance of success.” Gray v. Washington, 612 A.2d 839, 841-42 (D.C.1992) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Jordan Investment, Inc.green2 sentences2010See, e.g., Lewis v. Jordan Inv., Inc., 725 A.2d 495, 500 (D.C.1999). 2010We reversed, however, reasoning that the “status of our law” at the time dictated— as a matter of law, via the common-law doctrine of lis pendens — that appellee had constructive knowledge of appellants’ claim simply because appellants’ bankruptcy appeal was pending when appellee purchased the property. 5 Id. at 500-01 . | 1 | 1 |
Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Town of Washington Grovegreen2 sentences2010Cf. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 588 (2009) (interpreting case law "not as establishing absolute bars to participation by persons receiving potential interests in real property pendente lite, but as preventing, regardless of the doctrine of lis pendens, persons from participating as parties unnecessarily in actions in which their interests in the property in question derive entirely from transactions subsequent to, and completely independent of, the transaction called into question in the original action, such that those 2010Cf. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 588 (2009) (interpreting case law "not as establishing absolute bars to participation by persons receiving potential interests in real property pendente lite, but as preventing, regardless of the doctrine of lis pendens, persons from participating as parties unnecessarily in actions in which their interests in the property in question derive entirely from transactions subsequent to, and completely independent of, the transaction called into question in the original action, such that those | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kerns v. Kerns
green
1 sentence2008On the other hand, lis pendens "is still only a notice,” Kerns v. Kerns, 53 P.3d 1157 , 1164 n. 6 (Colo.2002); "[u]nlike a lien, a person obtains no new property interest through the operation of the lis pendens doctrine.” 14 Powell, supra, at 82A-4. 2 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
First Maryland Financial Services Corp. v. District-Realty Title Insurance Corp.
green
1 sentence1999Pursuant to the doctrine of lis pendens, therefore, Jordan had constructive knowledge of appellants’ claims when it purchased the property, and thus takes that property “subject to the parties’ rights as finally determined.” See id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.