Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tibbs v. Floridagreen1 sentence2024See Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 39-40 (1982). * * * The Supreme Court has already defined in Perry the only permissible exception to the Geders rule that a court order preventing a defendant from consulting with their attorney violates a defendant’s right to counsel and requires reversal. | 1 | 1 |
Carl v. Children's Hospitalgreen2 sentences1998Carl I, 657 A.2d at 288-89 ; see also id. at 294 (Farrell, J., concurring). 1998Carl I, 657 A.2d at 288-89 ; see also id. at 294 (Farrell, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
McBride v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988See Potter v. United States, 534 A.2d 943, 946 (D.C.1987); McBride v. United States, 441 A.2d 644, 648-650 (D.C.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Potter v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988See Potter v. United States, 534 A.2d 943, 946 (D.C.1987); McBride v. United States, 441 A.2d 644, 648-650 (D.C.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. Willifordgreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1975); Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital, 68 Misc.2d 1051 , 329 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y. 1987See, e.g., Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1975); Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital, 68 Misc.2d 1051 , 329 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972); Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); cf. Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1981). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Cochran Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C.1991), in which we held that it was unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee for refusing to violate a statute, represented the sole permissible exception to the "employment at-will doctrine," [11] and that a division of this court was not at liberty to recognize any new exception. 1998Cochran Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C.1991), in which we held that it was unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee for refusing to violate a statute, represented the sole permissible exception to the “employment at-will doctrine,” 11 and that a division of this court was not at liberty to recognize any new exception. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Weeda v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1997However, where “the patient’s negligent act merely precedes that of the physician and provides the occasion for medical treatment, contributory negligence is not a permissible defense.” Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital
green
2 sentences1987See, e.g., Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1975); Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital, 68 Misc.2d 1051 , 329 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972); Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); cf. Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1981). 1987See, e.g., Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1975); Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital, 68 Misc.2d 1051 , 329 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972); Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); cf. Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987See, e.g., Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1975); Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital, 68 Misc.2d 1051 , 329 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972); Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); cf. Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Whitehead v. Linkous
green
1 sentence1987See, e.g., Matthews v. Williford, 318 So.2d 480 (Fla.App.1975); Lamoree v. Binghamton General Hospital, 68 Misc.2d 1051 , 329 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972); Sendejar v. Alice Physicians & Surgeons Hospital, Inc., 555 S.W.2d 879 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); cf. Whitehead v. Linkous, 404 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1981). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Jasper v. Carter
green
1 sentence1984We continue to have misgivings as to “whether laches should be available as a defense in an action which seeks to collect mature court-ordered support payments.” Jasper v. Carter, supra, 451 A.2d at 48 n.2. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.