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 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019Here, the prosecutor largely did so the following day, seemingly heeding our advice that "even when the trial court rejects a defendant's Batson challenge for lack of a prima facie showing, it still may be desirable for the prosecutor contemporaneously to memorialize and disclose the reasons for his or her strikes." (Edward) Robinson , 890 A.2d at 683 ; see also (Leon) Robinson , 878 A.2d at 1290 (explaining that the third step inquiry "might still be feasible ... where the prosecutor voluntarily disclosed the reasons for his strikes in spite of the trial court's ruling and the record supports 2019By doing so, the third-step inquiry “might still be feasible,” (Leon) Robinson, 878 A.2d at 1290 , whereas the cost of not proffering reasons on the record “may be the outright reversal on appeal of the defendant’s conviction.” (Edward) Robinson, 890 A.2d at 683 . | 1 | 2 |
Epps v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015Because the prosecutors gave reasons for their strikes, the existence of a prima facie case is moot, see Epps v. United States, 683 A.2d 749, 752 (D.C.1996), and appellant concedes that “the government did articulate a race and gender-neutral reason for each strike.” This court’s case law does not specifically address whether being soft spoken or non-assertive are qualities that survive step two of a Batson challenge, but many courts have held that they do. 2015Because the prosecutors gave reasons for their strikes, the existence of a prima facie case is moot, see Epps v. United States, 683 A.2d 749, 752 (D.C. 1996), and appellant concedes that “the government did articulate a race and gender-neutral reason for each strike.” This court‟s case law does not specifically address whether being soft spoken or non-assertive are qualities that survive step two of a Batson challenge, but many courts have held that they do. | 1 | 1 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2003Under the circumstances, Dr. Callan’s testimony does not amount to “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”; and is not “specific and comprehensive enough to sever the potential connection between [Mr. Spencer’s] disability and [his] work-related [fall on May 26, 2000].” Safeway Stores, supra, 806 A.2d at 1219 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 *45 Furthermore, we reject WMA-TA’s argument, raised for the first time in this court, that the ALJ and the Director were required to move to the third step of the presumption of com | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Here, the prosecutor largely did so the following day, seemingly heeding our advice that "even when the trial court rejects a defendant's Batson challenge for lack of a prima facie showing, it still may be desirable for the prosecutor contemporaneously to memorialize and disclose the reasons for his or her strikes." (Edward) Robinson , 890 A.2d at 683 ; see also (Leon) Robinson , 878 A.2d at 1290 (explaining that the third step inquiry "might still be feasible ... where the prosecutor voluntarily disclosed the reasons for his strikes in spite of the trial court's ruling and the record supports 2019By doing so, the third-step inquiry “might still be feasible,” (Leon) Robinson, 878 A.2d at 1290 , whereas the cost of not proffering reasons on the record “may be the outright reversal on appeal of the defendant’s conviction.” (Edward) Robinson, 890 A.2d at 683 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
District of Columbia v. Gould
green
2 sentences2016“Estoppels against the public are little favored” and “should not be invoked except in rare and unusual, or exceptional, circumstances . . . , especially where their application would have an adverse impact on the public fisc.” Gould, supra, 852 A.2d at 56 . 2016“Estoppels against the public are little favored” and “should not be invoked except in rare and unusual, or exceptional, circumstances . . . , especially where their application would have an adverse impact on the public fisc.” Gould, supra, 852 A.2d at 56 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Spartin v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
1 sentence1997McKinley's psychiatric expert, Dr. Jeffrey Mendell, opined that McKinley suffered from "post-traumatic stress disorder." The employer's experts, Dr. Lawrence Brain and Dr. Brian Shulman, opined that McKinley had an "anxiety disorder." However the psychological disorder should be characterized, the hearing examiner noted that each psychiatrist "opined that the cause of claimant's disorder was the attack of ventricular tachycardia on January 10, 1991." [2] The majority's reliance on Spartin v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 584 A.2d 564 (D.C.1990), and thus on the objective tes | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.