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.
7 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington Sheraton Corporation v. Keetergreen2 sentences2021For that reason, “it is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so 21 that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’” Id. (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)). 2000We have previously said that: res ipsa loquitur “is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’ ” Hailey v. Otis Elevator Co., 636 A.2d 426, 428 (D.C.1994) (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C.1968)); see also Scott v. James, 731 A.2d 399, 403 (D.C.1999). | 4 | 4 |
Otis Elevator Co. v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2021For that reason, “it is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so 21 that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’” Id. (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)). 1999However, "[it] is a powerful doctrine which should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant's liability." Id. | 1 | 4 |
Hailey v. Otis Elevator Co.green2 sentences2000We have previously said that: res ipsa loquitur “is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’ ” Hailey v. Otis Elevator Co., 636 A.2d 426, 428 (D.C.1994) (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C.1968)); see also Scott v. James, 731 A.2d 399, 403 (D.C.1999). 1999Moreover, res ipsa loqui-tur “is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’ ” Hailey, supra, 636 A.2d at 428 (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)); see also Bunn v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Sys., Inc., 672 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C.1996) (quoting Krebs v. Corrigan, 321 A.2d 558, 559 (D.C.1974)). | 1 | 2 |
Otis Elevator Co. v. Tuerrgreen1 sentence2000Based on our review of Mr. Keranen’s case, we conclude that he failed to meet the first requirement for invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: “[the occurrence is] of the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence.” Hailey, supra, 636 A.2d at 428 (quoting Otis Elevator Co. v. Tuerr, 616 A.2d 1254, 1258 (D.C.1992) (quoting Otis Elevator Co. v. Henderson, 514 A.2d 784, 785 (D.C.1986))). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2000We have previously said that: res ipsa loquitur “is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’ ” Hailey v. Otis Elevator Co., 636 A.2d 426, 428 (D.C.1994) (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C.1968)); see also Scott v. James, 731 A.2d 399, 403 (D.C.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Bunn v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Systems, Inc.green2 sentences1999Moreover, res ipsa loqui-tur “is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’ ” Hailey, supra, 636 A.2d at 428 (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)); see also Bunn v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Sys., Inc., 672 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C.1996) (quoting Krebs v. Corrigan, 321 A.2d 558, 559 (D.C.1974)). 1999Moreover, res ipsa loquitur "is a powerful doctrine which `should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant's liability.'" Hailey, supra, 636 A.2d at 428 (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)); see also Bunn v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Sys., Inc., 672 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C.1996) (quoting Krebs v. Corrigan, 321 A.2d 558, 559 (D.C.1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Krebs v. Corrigangreen2 sentences1999Moreover, res ipsa loqui-tur “is a powerful doctrine which ‘should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant’s liability.’ ” Hailey, supra, 636 A.2d at 428 (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)); see also Bunn v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Sys., Inc., 672 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C.1996) (quoting Krebs v. Corrigan, 321 A.2d 558, 559 (D.C.1974)). 1999Moreover, res ipsa loquitur "is a powerful doctrine which `should be applied with caution in a negligence action so that the mere happening of an accident will not permit the inference of a defendant's liability.'" Hailey, supra, 636 A.2d at 428 (quoting Washington Sheraton Corp. v. Keeter, 239 A.2d 620, 622 (D.C. 1968)); see also Bunn v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Sys., Inc., 672 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C.1996) (quoting Krebs v. Corrigan, 321 A.2d 558, 559 (D.C.1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Ravo v. Lidogreen2 sentences1999In addition, “the doctrine ‘is not intended to relieve one party or the other of the expense of producing proof....’” Ravo v. Lido, 17 A.D.2d 476 , 236 N.Y.S.2d 135, 139 (N.Y.App.Div., 2d Dept.1962) (citation omitted). 1999In addition, “the doctrine ‘is not intended to relieve one party or the other of the expense of producing proof....’” Ravo v. Lido, 17 A.D.2d 476 , 236 N.Y.S.2d 135, 139 (N.Y.App.Div., 2d Dept.1962) (citation omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. NYLife Real Estate Holdings, LLC
green
1 sentence2024Holdings, LLC, 252 A.3d 490 , 501 (D.C. 2021) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.