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 1991–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Ty. B.green1 sentence2025See Ty.B., 878 A.2d at 1266 (distinguishing the analysis of harmlessness from sufficiency). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997Based upon the motion before it and the government’s opposition, the trial court denied the request for a new trial “for the reasons stated by the government.” “Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, decisions of the trial court regarding the denial of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal.” Smith v. United States, 466 A.2d 429, 432 (D.C.1983) (citing United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 , 111— 12, 66 S.Ct. 464, 466-67 , 90 L.Ed. 562 (1946) (other citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Joel v. Joelgreen2 sentences1991Except for the minor change necessitated by Joel v. Joel, 559 A.2d 769, 770-772 (D.C.1989), [6] I would affirm the trial court's ruling on Mrs. Graham's claim for increased alimony. 1991Except for the minor change necessitated by Joel v. Joel, 559 A.2d 769, 770-772 (D.C.1989), 6 I would affirm the trial court’s ruling on Mrs. Graham’s claim for increased alimony. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jones
green
2 sentences2017Supreme Court cases involving “direct government surveillance” (e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 , 132 S.Ct. 945 , 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012)) from the situation where the government “obtains, from a third party, the third party’s records, which permit the government to deduce location information.” 824 F.3d at 426 . 2017Supreme Court cases involving “direct government surveillance” (e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 , 132 S.Ct. 945 , 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012)) from the situation where the government “obtains, from a third party, the third party’s records, which permit the government to deduce location information.” 824 F.3d at 426 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Aaron Graham
green
1 sentence2017Supreme Court cases involving “direct government surveillance” (e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 , 132 S.Ct. 945 , 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012)) from the situation where the government “obtains, from a third party, the third party’s records, which permit the government to deduce location information.” 824 F.3d at 426 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Karo
green
2 sentences2017Supreme Court cases involving “direct government surveillance” (e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 , 132 S.Ct. 945 , 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012)) from the situation where the government “obtains, from a third party, the third party’s records, which permit the government to deduce location information.” 824 F.3d at 426 . 2017Supreme Court cases involving “direct government surveillance” (e.g., United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 , 132 S.Ct. 945 , 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012)) from the situation where the government “obtains, from a third party, the third party’s records, which permit the government to deduce location information.” 824 F.3d at 426 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2013Lastly, Miller , the most recent decision in the categorical exception line, adopts Graham’s rule that “youth matters in determining the appropriateness of a lifetime of incarceration without the possibility of parole.” Miller, supra, 132 S.Ct. at 2465 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1997Based upon the motion before it and the government’s opposition, the trial court denied the request for a new trial “for the reasons stated by the government.” “Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, decisions of the trial court regarding the denial of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal.” Smith v. United States, 466 A.2d 429, 432 (D.C.1983) (citing United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 , 111— 12, 66 S.Ct. 464, 466-67 , 90 L.Ed. 562 (1946) (other citations omitted)). 1997Based upon the motion before it and the government’s opposition, the trial court denied the request for a new trial “for the reasons stated by the government.” “Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, decisions of the trial court regarding the denial of a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal.” Smith v. United States, 466 A.2d 429, 432 (D.C.1983) (citing United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 , 111— 12, 66 S.Ct. 464, 466-67 , 90 L.Ed. 562 (1946) (other citations omitted)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.