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 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stroman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015See Bean v. United States, 17 A.3d 635, 638-39 (D.C.2011) (“ ‘[A]ny factual finding anchored in credibility assessments derived from personal observations of the witnesses is beyond appellate reversal unless those factual findings are clearly erroneous.’ ”) (quoting Stroman v. United States, 878 A.2d 1241, 1244 (D.C.2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Bean v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015See Bean v. United States, 17 A.3d 635, 638-39 (D.C.2011) (“ ‘[A]ny factual finding anchored in credibility assessments derived from personal observations of the witnesses is beyond appellate reversal unless those factual findings are clearly erroneous.’ ”) (quoting Stroman v. United States, 878 A.2d 1241, 1244 (D.C.2005)). | 1 | 1 |
International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers v. Tennessee Valley Authoritygreen1 sentence2012Cf. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. TVA, 108 F.3d 658, 665 (6th Cir.1997) (holding that "the limitations periods established by federal law for labor law actions involving private employers are applicable to actions involving the TVA,” even though it is a federal corporation specifically exempted from the NLRA, and rejecting, as "foreclosed both by precedent and by common sense,” the argument that "the specific exemption of the TVA from the NLRA demonstrates that Congress intended that all labor relations actions involving the TVA should be subjected to state limitations perio | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See Coleman v. United States, 515 A.2d 439, 453 (D.C.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1631 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); see also Smith v. United States, 542 A.2d 823, 824 (D.C.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See Coleman v. United States, 515 A.2d 439, 453 (D.C.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1631 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); see also Smith v. United States, 542 A.2d 823, 824 (D.C.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See Coleman v. United States, 515 A.2d 439, 453 (D.C.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1631 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); see also Smith v. United States, 542 A.2d 823, 824 (D.C.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Frappier v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See Coleman v. United States, 515 A.2d 439, 453 (D.C.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1631 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); see also Smith v. United States, 542 A.2d 823, 824 (D.C.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Perkins v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence1991See D.C.Code § 1-1509(e) (1987); Perkins v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 482 A.2d 401, 402 (D.C.1984). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences1984The government presented substantial corroborative evidence detailing Butler’s involvement with the assassination plot (e.g., testimony of postman Frazier), making it possible “to conclude that substantial rights were not affected,” id. at 765 , 66 S.Ct. at 1248 , by the nondisclosure of the Jencks material. 30 Because the trial court’s determination was not clearly erroneous, 31 its denial of Butler’s motion for a new trial based on the Jencks Act violation must be affirmed. 1984The government presented substantial corroborative evidence detailing Butler’s involvement with the assassination plot (e.g., testimony of postman Frazier), making it possible “to conclude that substantial rights were not affected,” id. at 765 , 66 S.Ct. at 1248 , by the nondisclosure of the Jencks material. 30 Because the trial court’s determination was not clearly erroneous, 31 its denial of Butler’s motion for a new trial based on the Jencks Act violation must be affirmed. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.