5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alvis v. Ribargreen2 sentences1994See Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1, 11-14 , 52 Ill.Dec. 23 , 28-33, 421 N.E.2d 886, 891-95 (1981). 1994See Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1, 11-14 , 52 Ill.Dec. 23 , 28-33, 421 N.E.2d 886, 891-95 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
District of Columbia v. Huysmangreen1 sentence1998See District of Columbia v. Huysman, 650 A.2d 1323, 1327-28, 1328 (D.C.1994) (Ferren, J., concurring; Farrell, J., concurring); Washington Metro. | 1 | 1 |
Elam v. Ethical Prescription Pharmacy, Inc.green1 sentence1984In the District of Columbia, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, Brown v. Clancy, 43 A.2d 296, 298 (D.C.1945); accord, Elam v. Ethical Prescription Pharmacy, Inc., 422 A.2d 1288 , 1289 n. 2 (D.C.1980), since our substantive tort law does not include the doctrine of comparative negligence. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Clancygreen1 sentence1984In the District of Columbia, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, Brown v. Clancy, 43 A.2d 296, 298 (D.C.1945); accord, Elam v. Ethical Prescription Pharmacy, Inc., 422 A.2d 1288 , 1289 n. 2 (D.C.1980), since our substantive tort law does not include the doctrine of comparative negligence. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
District of Columbia v. Washington Hospital Center
green
1 sentence2011Furthermore, because this jurisdiction does not recognize the doctrine of comparative negligence, the “allowance of contribution under our rules is premised upon each tortfeasor being responsible for a single injury and sharing equally in making the injured party whole.” Id. at 339 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.