5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
George Hyman Construction Co. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2013In light of petitioner’s specific testimony that she was ill in October 1993 and her doctor’s note to that effect, and the conspicuous absence of any similar evidence about the week ending September 25, 1993, we conclude that the record does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that this second accrued leave week was an illness-related week. 11 Petitioner may well have been ül during the week ending September 25, 1993 (the record suggests that she had a number of ongoing medical problems), but she bore the burden of proving that claim. 12 See George Hyman Constr., 497 A.2d at 108 (approving as rea | 1 | 1 |
Cather v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2013In light of petitioner’s specific testimony that she was ill in October 1993 and her doctor’s note to that effect, and the conspicuous absence of any similar evidence about the week ending September 25, 1993, we conclude that the record does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that this second accrued leave week was an illness-related week. 11 Petitioner may well have been ül during the week ending September 25, 1993 (the record suggests that she had a number of ongoing medical problems), but she bore the burden of proving that claim. 12 See George Hyman Constr., 497 A.2d at 108 (approving as rea | 1 | 1 |
In Re Artisgreen1 sentence2007Even in disciplinary cases, however, Bar Counsel has the burden of proving a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence, see In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 13 (D.C.2005), and a respondent is not required to “make Bar Counsel’s case.” In re Artis, 883 A.2d 85, 99 (D.C.2005). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Catergreen1 sentence2007Even in disciplinary cases, however, Bar Counsel has the burden of proving a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence, see In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 13 (D.C.2005), and a respondent is not required to “make Bar Counsel’s case.” In re Artis, 883 A.2d 85, 99 (D.C.2005). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mitchellgreen1 sentence2005In re Mitchell, 727 A.2d 308, 313 (D.C.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Mrs. Lorena W. Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Mrs. Lorena W. Weeksgreen1 sentence1990Co., 408 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir.1969) (prohibition against discrimination in employment); 29 Goodman v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Speights
green
1 sentence2020In re Speights, 173 A.3d 96 , 99 n.3 (D.C. 2017). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.