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 1951–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Twin Towers Plaza Tenants Ass'n v. Capitol Park Associates, L.P.green1 sentence2016Br. 4 ("[T]he Board heeds ‘the oft-repeated warning that the views of a subsequent [legislature] form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.’ ”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twin Towers Plaza Tenants Ass’n v. Capitol Park Assoc., L.P., 894 A.2d 1113, 1120 (D.C.2006)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016This court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the [finder of fact] to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact[.]” Crockett v. District of Columbia, 95 A.3d 601, 606 (D.C.2014) (quoting Gibson v. United States, 792 A.2d 1059, 1065 (D.C.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Anthony Crockett v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2016This court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the [finder of fact] to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact[.]” Crockett v. District of Columbia, 95 A.3d 601, 606 (D.C.2014) (quoting Gibson v. United States, 792 A.2d 1059, 1065 (D.C.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Curry v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2002We apply the long-established and oft-repeated standard, reviewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the [fact finder] to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, and making no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.” Guishard v. United States, 669 A.2d 1306, 1312 (D.C.1995) (citing Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). 16 We will not reverse unless there is no evidence from which a “reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re | 1 | 1 |
Matter of LAVgreen1 sentence2002We apply the long-established and oft-repeated standard, reviewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the [fact finder] to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, and making no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.” Guishard v. United States, 669 A.2d 1306, 1312 (D.C.1995) (citing Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). 16 We will not reverse unless there is no evidence from which a “reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re | 1 | 1 |
Guishard v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2002We apply the long-established and oft-repeated standard, reviewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government, giving full play to the right of the [fact finder] to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, and making no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.” Guishard v. United States, 669 A.2d 1306, 1312 (D.C.1995) (citing Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). 16 We will not reverse unless there is no evidence from which a “reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Indiana Ex Rel. Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Oscar Ewing, Administrator Federal Security Administration
green
1 sentence1953Bank of Washington, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 228 , 195 F.2d 556, 559 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Callaway v. Hamilton Nat. Bank of Washington
green
1 sentence1953Bank of Washington, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 228 , 195 F.2d 556, 559 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Evans v. Prentice
green
1 sentence1951We need not stress the oft-repeated rule that directing a verdict on an opening statement is “an extreme measure and trial judges should invoke it most cautiously, for the opening statement is to be construed liberally and favorably to plaintiff’s case.” Evans v. Prentice, D.C.Mun.App., 79 A.2d 396, 397 ; Custer v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C.Mun.App., 43 A.2d 716 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Custer v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
green
1 sentence1951We need not stress the oft-repeated rule that directing a verdict on an opening statement is “an extreme measure and trial judges should invoke it most cautiously, for the opening statement is to be construed liberally and favorably to plaintiff’s case.” Evans v. Prentice, D.C.Mun.App., 79 A.2d 396, 397 ; Custer v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., D.C.Mun.App., 43 A.2d 716 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.