6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cloutterbuck v. Cloutterbuckgreen1 sentence2000See D.C.Code § 16 — 2304(b)(1) (parent, guardian or custodian is statutorily entitled to representation by counsel "at all critical stages of the [neglect] proceedings”); see also Cloutterbuck v. Cloutterbuck, 556 A.2d 1082, 1086 (D.C.1989) (holding that right to counsel conferred by § 16 — 2304(b)(1) is "strictly statutory in nature” and limited to its terms). | 1 | 1 |
MONTGOMERY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N v. Baergreen2 sentences1993Sav. & Loan *323 Ass'n v. Baer, 308 A.2d 768, 770 (D.C.1973). [5] Our obligation under M.A.P. v. Ryan to follow otherwise binding precedents does not evaporate because a party has failed to cite them to us. 1993Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Baer, 308 A.2d 768, 770 (D.C.1973). 5 Our obligation under M.A.P. v. Ryan to follow otherwise binding precedents does not evaporate because a party has failed to cite them to us. | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1992See Reed, supra, 485 A.2d at 617 (referring to government’s pretrial practice of obtaining a certified copy or a stipulation from defense counsel regarding the defendant’s prior convictions to be used for impeachment). 10 .The prosecutor stated: During the preliminaries before jury selection, I represented that [appellant] didn't have any impeachable convictions. 1992See Reed, supra, 485 A.2d at 617 (referring to government’s pretrial practice of obtaining a certified copy or a stipulation from defense counsel regarding the defendant’s prior convictions to be used for impeachment). 10 .The prosecutor stated: During the preliminaries before jury selection, I represented that [appellant] didn't have any impeachable convictions. | 1 | 1 |
Oliver v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1984See Oliver v. United States, 384 A.2d 642 (D.C.1978) (Sixth Amendment lack of counsel violation); D.C.Code § 23-111 (1981) (proceedings to establish prior convictions for purposes for increased punishment). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2015He claims that the government’s “evidence was far from overwhelming,” and that as in Eady , “ ‘there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the improper evidence and references to [another crime] might have influenced the jury to find that [he, Mr. Washington,] was guilty of the drug charges in this case.” Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the government contends that “absent both a stipulation and a waiver of [Mr. Washington’s] right to a jury trial, [his] pre-trial release status was a fact that the jury was required to determine before th 2015He claims that the government’s “evidence was far from overwhelming,” and that as in Eady , “ ‘there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the improper evidence and references to [another crime] might have influenced the jury to find that [he, Mr. Washington,] was guilty of the drug charges in this case.” Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the government contends that “absent both a stipulation and a waiver of [Mr. Washington’s] right to a jury trial, [his] pre-trial release status was a fact that the jury was required to determine before th | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2015He claims that the government’s “evidence was far from overwhelming,” and that as in Eady , “ ‘there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the improper evidence and references to [another crime] might have influenced the jury to find that [he, Mr. Washington,] was guilty of the drug charges in this case.” Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the government contends that “absent both a stipulation and a waiver of [Mr. Washington’s] right to a jury trial, [his] pre-trial release status was a fact that the jury was required to determine before th 2015He claims that the government’s “evidence was far from overwhelming,” and that as in Eady , “ ‘there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that the improper evidence and references to [another crime] might have influenced the jury to find that [he, Mr. Washington,] was guilty of the drug charges in this case.” Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the government contends that “absent both a stipulation and a waiver of [Mr. Washington’s] right to a jury trial, [his] pre-trial release status was a fact that the jury was required to determine before th | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Byrd v. United States
green
1 sentence2010This case is much like Byrd , where the defendant stipulated that a key government witness would give certain testimony if called to the stand. 485 A.2d at 948 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Randall E. Sebold, Sr. v. Irene H. Sebold
green
2 sentences1993Even if we were to treat the father’s “concession” as amounting to a stipulation that the test applied in these decisions has been superseded, 4 we are not bound by stipulations on questions of law in general, Sebold v. Sebold, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 406 , 412 n. 8, 444 F.2d 864 , 870 n. 8 (1971) (decided several months before M.A.P. v. Ryan), or as to choice of law in particular, Montgomery Fed. 1993Even if we were to treat the father’s “concession” as amounting to a stipulation that the test applied in these decisions has been superseded, 4 we are not bound by stipulations on questions of law in general, Sebold v. Sebold, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 406 , 412 n. 8, 444 F.2d 864 , 870 n. 8 (1971) (decided several months before M.A.P. v. Ryan), or as to choice of law in particular, Montgomery Fed. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.