5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024In reviewing a jury verdict, we “do not know how the jury viewed the evidence,” and thus we “affirm the conviction if we think ‘that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.’” Id. (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 (1999)). 2017Thus in jury trial cases, we affirm the conviction if we think "that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by. overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error,” Neder, 527 U.S. at 17 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 . | 1 | 3 |
R. & G. Orthopedic Appliances & Prosthetics, Inc. v. Curtingreen1 sentence2024Orthopedic Appliances & Prosthetics, Inc. v. Curtin, 596 A.2d 530, 540 (D.C. 1991) (holding that appellate courts should not reverse in civil cases if they are fairly assured that the outcome would have been the same absent the error); D.C. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Skillinggreen2 sentences2012First, the court “after a thorough examination of the record, is able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent error.” Skilling, 638 F.3d at 482 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2012Second, “the jury, in convicting on an invalid theory of guilt, necessarily found facts establishing guilt on a valid theory.” Id. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
RAYSHAWN CLARK, DWAYNE HILTON and PERNELL LEE v. UNITED STATES
green
2 sentences2017By contrast, in a bench trial, we often know the inferences the factfinder made and declined to make, see Clark (Rayshawn), 147 A.3d at 328 n.14 (explaining that bench trial ―findings on the record‖ are subject to appellate review because, unlike ―secre[t] . . . jury deliberations,‖ we know when ―the trial court left a dispositive factual dispute unresolved‖ or resolved a specific issue in a manner inconsistent with the ultimate verdict), and remand is an accepted course of action. 2017By contrast, in a bench trial, we often know the inferences the factfinder made and declined to make, see Clark (Rayshawn), 147 A.3d at 328 n.14 (explaining that bench trial “findings on the record” are subject to appellate review because, unlike ”secre[t] .,. jury deliberations," we know when "the trial court left a dispositive factual dispute unresolved” or resolved a specific issue in a manner inconsistent with the ultimate verdict), and remand is an accepted course of action. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Lee Carrell v. United States (Revised Version)
green
1 sentence2024In reviewing a jury verdict, we “do not know how the jury viewed the evidence,” and thus we “affirm the conviction if we think ‘that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.’” Id. (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 (1999)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.