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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew L. Weems v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2023While we “review the judge’s discovery rulings for abuse of discretion,” the issue of “proper construction of Criminal Rule 16 is a legal question as to which our review is de novo.” Weems v. United States, 191 A.3d 296, 300 (D.C. 2018) (italics omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Springer v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2004The court reasoned that it was “relevant, if someone else planted the seed that this person does this to little girls ... the jury is entitled to hear that.” 18 “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see Springer v. United States, 388 | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1984This was correct, Johnson v. United States, 298 A.2d 516, 518 (D.C.1972), and thus the evidence was properly before the jury- The government concedes, however, that certain questions by the prosecutor were gratuitous, although not plain error. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kreuzer v. George Washington University
green
1 sentence2017Arguably, we came the closest to confronting this issue in Kreuzer v. George Wash. Univ., 896 A.2d 238 (D.C. 2006). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2004The court reasoned that it was “relevant, if someone else planted the seed that this person does this to little girls ... the jury is entitled to hear that.” 18 “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see Springer v. United States, 388 2004The court reasoned that it was “relevant, if someone else planted the seed that this person does this to little girls ... the jury is entitled to hear that.” 18 “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see Springer v. United States, 388 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Robert James Richards v. Milton Stanley Mileski (Two Cases)
green
2 sentences1999D.C. at 223 nn. 5 & 7, 662 F.2d at 68 nn. 5 & 7. 23 .The court ruled that the doctrine of equitable tolling was potentially applicable due to the defendants' fraudulent concealment of the facts underlying Richards’ claim. 1999Richards, supra, 213 U.S.App. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.