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 1990–2003 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Coulibaly v. Malaquiasgreen1 sentence2003See Coulibaly v. Malaqui *749 as, 728 A.2d 595, 603 (D.C.1999) (holding that trial court abused its discretion in shifting burden of proof to plaintiff “without engaging in the prerequisite analysis of which forum had more substantial contacts with the action”). | 1 | 1 |
Neale v. Arshadgreen2 sentences1999See Johnson, supra note 8, 398 A.2d at 365 (noting that a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider all relevant factors). *604 This court has previously employed the Mills burden-shifting standard only where there is “virtually no link to this jurisdiction.” Neale, supra, 683 A.2d at 163 (quoting Kaiser Found. 1999See Johnson, supra note 8, 398 A.2d at 365 (noting that a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider all relevant factors). *604 This court has previously employed the Mills burden-shifting standard only where there is “virtually no link to this jurisdiction.” Neale, supra, 683 A.2d at 163 (quoting Kaiser Found. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pierola v. Moschonas
green
2 sentences2003Pierola, 687 A.2d at 947 . 2003Pierola, 687 A.2d at 947 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
District of Columbia v. Campbell
green
1 sentence1999In District of Columbia v. Campbell, 580 A.2d 1295 (D.C.1990), however, we held that compliance with § 12-309’s notice requirement, is not a prerequisite to a claim *881 in contract against the District of Columbia. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Wright v. Armwood
green
2 sentences1990Wright, supra, 107 A.2d at 703-04 ; Boyle, supra, 64 A.2d at 429-30 . 1990Wright, supra, 107 A.2d at 703-04 ; Boyle, supra, 64 A.2d at 429-30 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Boyle v. Smith
green
2 sentences1990Wright, supra, 107 A.2d at 703-04 ; Boyle, supra, 64 A.2d at 429-30 . 1990Wright, supra, 107 A.2d at 703-04 ; Boyle, supra, 64 A.2d at 429-30 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.