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.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington Post v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen2 sentences2018The burden then reverts to the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, without the aid of the presumption, ‘ that a work-related injury caused or contributed to his or her disability,” Washington Post v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 852 A.2d 909, 911 (D.C. 2004). . 2018The burden then reverts to the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, without the aid of the presumption, that a work-related injury caused or contributed to his or her disability.” Washington Post v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 852 A.2d 909, 911 (D.C. 2004). 12 his pain[;]” that Mr. Battle‟s physical therapist found his back pain to be “consistent with lumbar strain probably due to prolonged work hours involving repetitive twisting while driving [a] bus[;]”13 and that the orthopedic surgeon who was treating Mr. Battle deemed it likely, based on “numerous studies | 2 | 2 |
Olson v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2018See Olson v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 736 A.2d 1032, 1038 (D.C. 1999) (rejecting claimant‟s contention that the ALJ should not have relied on a report by her physical therapist). 14 The record thus does not support the CRB‟s statement that there was no evidence that Mr. Battle had “endured repeated exposure to a trauma or harmful conditions” other than Dr. Thomas‟s opinion. 15 See, e.g., Hensley v. Washington Metro. | 1 | 1 |
Felton v. Wagnergreen1 sentence1990We emphasized in Felton that "[i]t is not the right of every injured party who has been contributorily negligent to seek the aid of the doctrine of last clear chance,” 512 A.2d at 296 (citation omitted), and we reiterate that point here. | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. D. C. Transit System, Inc.green2 sentences1986Transit System, Inc., 198 A.2d 740, 742 (D.C.1964). 1986Transit System, Inc., 198 A.2d 740, 742 (D.C.1964). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. Young
green
1 sentence1964Hocheisen v. Smith, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 323 , 158 F.2d 100 ; Heinecke v. Western Union Telegraph Co., D.C.Mun.App., 156 A.2d 143 ; Jenkins v. Young, D.C.Mun.App., 135 A.2d 318 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Heinecke v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
green
1 sentence1964Hocheisen v. Smith, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 323 , 158 F.2d 100 ; Heinecke v. Western Union Telegraph Co., D.C.Mun.App., 156 A.2d 143 ; Jenkins v. Young, D.C.Mun.App., 135 A.2d 318 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Hocheisen v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1964Hocheisen v. Smith, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 323 , 158 F.2d 100 ; Heinecke v. Western Union Telegraph Co., D.C.Mun.App., 156 A.2d 143 ; Jenkins v. Young, D.C.Mun.App., 135 A.2d 318 . 1964Hocheisen v. Smith, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 323 , 158 F.2d 100 ; Heinecke v. Western Union Telegraph Co., D.C.Mun.App., 156 A.2d 143 ; Jenkins v. Young, D.C.Mun.App., 135 A.2d 318 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.