case fits within exception (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

case fits within exception in District of Columbia

5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–1996 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Harkeem v. Adamsgreen
nh · 1977 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992Andrews v. District of Columbia, 443 A.2d 566, 569 (D.C.1982) (quoting Harkeem v. Adams, 117 N.H. 687, 691 , 377 A.2d 617, 619 (1977)).

1992Andrews v. District of Columbia, 443 A.2d 566, 569 (D.C.1982) (quoting Harkeem v. Adams, 117 N.H. 687, 691 , 377 A.2d 617, 619 (1977)).

11
Andrews v. District of Columbiagreen
dc · 1982 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992Andrews v. District of Columbia, 443 A.2d 566, 569 (D.C.1982) (quoting Harkeem v. Adams, 117 N.H. 687, 691 , 377 A.2d 617, 619 (1977)).

11
McMorris v. Aliotogreen
ca9 · 1978 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987In McMorris v. Alioto, 567 F.2d 897, 899 (9th Cir.1978), the court stat *661 ed that “[t]he search must be clearly necessary to secure a vital governmental interest, such as protecting sensitive facilities from a real danger of violence.” Here, there is a vital governmental interest, as this is a government building which certainly can be characterized as a “sensitive facility.” As such, the instant case fits squarely within the proposition of McMor-ris that limited warrantless searches of persons seeking to enter sensitive facilities may be lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
James H. Ellis, Jr. v. United States of America, Alfred M. Watkins v. United States green
cadc · 1969
2 sentences

1994Appellants argue, however, that this case fits within the exception to this principle announced in Ellis v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 35 , 416 F.2d 791 (1969).

1994Appellants argue, however, that this case fits within the exception to this principle announced in Ellis v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 35 , 416 F.2d 791 (1969).

31992–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DC § D.C. Code § 22-2403 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

DC 5 (1987–1996) TX 3 (2009–2025) CT 2 (1995–2005) WI 2 (1994–2022) NY 2 (1982–1984) NH 2 (2008–2014) AL 2 (2003–2004)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check