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 1984–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Buttongreen1 sentence2023Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). 22 New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 271 . 23 Id. at 271-72 (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963)). 22 public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” required the actual malice standard to apply to a defamation suit brought by a public official for statements that related to his official conduct. 24 The Court later expanded the rule that there be proof of defamation with actual malice to suits brought by other “public figures,” 25 as we explain below. | 1 | 1 |
St. Amant v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2023Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). 22 New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 271 . 23 Id. at 271-72 (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963)). 22 public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” required the actual malice standard to apply to a defamation suit brought by a public official for statements that related to his official conduct. 24 The Court later expanded the rule that there be proof of defamation with actual malice to suits brought by other “public figures,” 25 as we explain below. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2002Id. at 665 (references omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mosleygreen2 sentences1987See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 , 100 S.Ct. 1046 , 62 L.Ed.2d 773 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 261 Pa.Super. 198, 201 , 395 A.2d 1384, 1386 (1978). 1987See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 , 100 S.Ct. 1046 , 62 L.Ed.2d 773 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 261 Pa.Super. 198, 201 , 395 A.2d 1384, 1386 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Garnett Johnnie Jonesgreen1 sentence1987See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 , 100 S.Ct. 1046 , 62 L.Ed.2d 773 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 261 Pa.Super. 198, 201 , 395 A.2d 1384, 1386 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Wolfel v. Jagogreen1 sentence1987See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 , 100 S.Ct. 1046 , 62 L.Ed.2d 773 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 261 Pa.Super. 198, 201 , 395 A.2d 1384, 1386 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Russo v. Supreme Court of New Yorkgreen1 sentence1987See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 , 100 S.Ct. 1046 , 62 L.Ed.2d 773 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 261 Pa.Super. 198, 201 , 395 A.2d 1384, 1386 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkerson v. Blakenshipgreen1 sentence1987See United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 , 100 S.Ct. 1046 , 62 L.Ed.2d 773 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mosley, 261 Pa.Super. 198, 201 , 395 A.2d 1384, 1386 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Rice v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1984See also Rice v. United States, 437 A.2d 582, 583 (D.C.1981) (per curiam) (because of “the presence at trial of the victim and his availability for cross-examination ... the trial court correctly admitted the testimony of the officer as to the victim’s pretrial out-of-court identification of appellant_”). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984In Morris v. United States, 389 A.2d 1346 (D.C.1978), this court expanded the exception to include out-of-court description testimony, applying the rationale of Clemons that the description testimony “was subjected to thorough cross-examination at trial for errors and inconsistencies.” Id. at 1351. 1984In Morris v. United States, 389 A.2d 1346 (D.C.1978), this court expanded the exception to include out-of-court description testimony, applying the rationale of Clemons that the description testimony “was subjected to thorough cross-examination at trial for errors and inconsistencies.” Id. at 1351. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2023Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). 22 New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 271 . 23 Id. at 271-72 (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963)). 22 public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” required the actual malice standard to apply to a defamation suit brought by a public official for statements that related to his official conduct. 24 The Court later expanded the rule that there be proof of defamation with actual malice to suits brought by other “public figures,” 25 as we explain below. 2023Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)). 22 New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 271 . 23 Id. at 271-72 (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963)). 22 public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” required the actual malice standard to apply to a defamation suit brought by a public official for statements that related to his official conduct. 24 The Court later expanded the rule that there be proof of defamation with actual malice to suits brought by other “public figures,” 25 as we explain below. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Erickson
green
2 sentences1988The court noted that any “effort to present any substantial number” of the experts available, not to mention the authors of "literally hundreds of scientific articles,” would be "prohibitively expensive and unduly time-consuming,” and that it was "questionable whether such an expanded hearing would reveal more reliable or higher quality information” than that produced by the exchange of briefs plus "additional research at the appellate level.” Id. at 6 . 1988The court added that, where the authors of scientific sources “have not been subjected to cross-examination, we will weigh their data and conclusions with this fact in mind.” Id. at 7 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.