non-deferential de novo standard (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

non-deferential de novo standard in District of Columbia

6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2003 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Griffin v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1992 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1994–1996
2 sentences

1996An appellate court, of course, reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions "under the non-deferential de novo standard.” See, e.g., Griffin v. United States, 618 A.2d 114, 117 (D.C.1992) (citations omitted). 8 .

1996However, “[t]he trial court’s legal conclusions ... are reviewed under the non-deferential de novo standard.” Id.

13
United States v. Feldergreen
dc · 1988 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348 , 1352 n. 7 (D.C.1991); United States v. Felder, 548 A.2d 57, 61 (D.C.1988). "[ D ] e novo review of questions of law ... serves to minimize judicial error by assigning to the court best positioned to decide the issue the primary responsibility for doing so." McConney, supra, 728 F.2d at 1201 .

1992Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348 , 1352 n. 7 (D.C.1991); United States v. Felder, 548 A.2d 57, 61 (D.C.1988). “[D]e novo review of questions of law ... serves to minimize judicial error by assigning to the court best positioned to decide the issue the primary responsibility for doing so.” McConney, supra, 728 F.2d at 1201 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Guadalupe v. United States green
dc · 1991
2 sentences

1997Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348 , 1352 n. 7 (D.C.1991).

1994Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348 , 1352 n. 7 (D.C.1991); Griffin, supra, 618 A.2d at 117 .

31992–1997
Littlejohn v. United States green
dc · 1997
1 sentence

2003Littlejohn, 705 A.2d at 1082 .

12003–2003
United States v. Winston Bryant McConney red
ca9 · 1984
2 sentences

1992Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348 , 1352 n. 7 (D.C.1991); United States v. Felder, 548 A.2d 57, 61 (D.C.1988). “[D]e novo review of questions of law ... serves to minimize judicial error by assigning to the court best positioned to decide the issue the primary responsibility for doing so.” McConney, supra, 728 F.2d at 1201 .

1992Guadalupe v. United States, 585 A.2d 1348 , 1352 n. 7 (D.C.1991); United States v. Felder, 548 A.2d 57, 61 (D.C.1988). “[D]e novo review of questions of law ... serves to minimize judicial error by assigning to the court best positioned to decide the issue the primary responsibility for doing so.” McConney, supra, 728 F.2d at 1201 .

11992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DC § D.C. Code § 17-305 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

KY 18 (2020–2026) DC 6 (1992–2003) MD 5 (2013–2021) OK 3 (2003–2020) UT 2 (2022–2023) NC 2 (2010–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check