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 1980–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arnold v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982The dispute here centers on the viability of the corroboration rule, as applied to child complainants, after Arnold v. United States, D.C.App., 358 A.2d 335 (1976) (en banc). [5] In Arnold, id. at 344 , we mandated that "in the future no instruction directed specifically to the credibility of any mature female victim of rape or its lesser included offenses and the necessity for corroboration of her testimony shall be required or given in the trial of any such case in the District of Columbia court system." (Emphasis supplied.) Arnold does not affect sex offense cases involving a minor victim. 1982The dispute here centers on the viability of the corroboration rule, as applied to child complainants, after Arnold v. United States, D.C.App., 358 A.2d 335 (1976) (en banc). [5] In Arnold, id. at 344 , we mandated that "in the future no instruction directed specifically to the credibility of any mature female victim of rape or its lesser included offenses and the necessity for corroboration of her testimony shall be required or given in the trial of any such case in the District of Columbia court system." (Emphasis supplied.) Arnold does not affect sex offense cases involving a minor victim. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. United States
green
2 sentences1982The issue was addressed by this court in Hall v. United States, D.C.App., 400 A.2d 1063 (1979), where we affirmed a conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor child (7-year-old boy). 1982The issue was addressed by this court in Hall v. United States, D.C.App., 400 A.2d 1063 (1979), where we affirmed a conviction for taking indecent liberties with a minor child (7-year-old boy). | 2 | 1980–1982 |
Adams v. Ferreira
green
1 sentence2012The trial court in Adams extended the CPO for twelve months even though "no party to the original proceeding moved to have the CPO extended.” 741 A.2d at 1047 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Puckett v. United States
green
1 sentence2011Id. 13 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Robinson v. United States
green
1 sentence2002A final consideration that inclines against a procedural bar to a bona fide Rule 35(a) motion is the potential “gravity of the error,” (Timothy) Robinson, 454 A.2d at 813 , when an illegal sentence — e.g., a lengthy term of imprisonment that is *63 forbidden by law — is imposed. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.