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 1998–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015See Porter v. United States, 561 A.2d 994, 996 (D.C. 1989) (“[T]he trial judge has wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination as to the potential bias of a witness based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, or interrogation that is only marginally relevant.”). 2015See Porter v. United States, 561 A.2d 994, 996 (D.C. 1989) (“[T]he trial judge has wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination as to the potential bias of a witness based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, or interrogation that is only marginally relevant.”). | 4 | 4 |
Reed v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998This situation is analogous to our approach in Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839 , 104 S.Ct. 132 , 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983) where we said that: “[A]ny party is entitled ‘to bring out on direct examination damaging information about ... his witness, ... ’ ” 452 A.2d at 1179 (citation omitted). 1998This situation is analogous to our approach in Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839 , 104 S.Ct. 132 , 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983) where we said that: “[A]ny party is entitled ‘to bring out on direct examination damaging information about ... his witness, ... ’ ” 452 A.2d at 1179 (citation omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. United States
green
2 sentences1998This situation is analogous to our approach in Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839 , 104 S.Ct. 132 , 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983) where we said that: “[A]ny party is entitled ‘to bring out on direct examination damaging information about ... his witness, ... ’ ” 452 A.2d at 1179 (citation omitted). 1998This situation is analogous to our approach in Reed v. United States, 452 A.2d 1173 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839 , 104 S.Ct. 132 , 78 L.Ed.2d 127 (1983) where we said that: “[A]ny party is entitled ‘to bring out on direct examination damaging information about ... his witness, ... ’ ” 452 A.2d at 1179 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.