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 1983–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences2024There, we went on to explain “that more than de minimis violations of the Housing Regulations are required to establish breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Id. at 47 n.5; see Wright, 681 A.2d at 1105 (“In order to establish a violation of the warranty of habitability, a tenant must show that any noncompliance with the housing regulations is more than de minimis.”) (citing id. at 47 n.5)). 10 “more than de minimis” housing code violations to breach the warranty of habitability). 2024There, we went on to explain “that more than de minimis violations of the Housing Regulations are required to establish breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Id. at 47 n.5; see Wright, 681 A.2d at 1105 (“In order to establish a violation of the warranty of habitability, a tenant must show that any noncompliance with the housing regulations is more than de minimis.”) (citing id. at 47 n.5)). 10 “more than de minimis” housing code violations to breach the warranty of habitability). | 1 | 1 |
Global Van Lines, Inc. v. Kleinowgreen1 sentence1990In defamation law, it is often said that truth is an absolute defense, Global Van Lines v. Kleinow, 411 A.2d 62, 64 (D.C.1980), but since New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, at least with respect to media defendants, the weight of authority has been that falsity must be pleaded and proven by the plaintiff. 22 The relevant standardized jury instruction states that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the publication complained of is false,” drawing no distinction based on the identity of the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Harrison v. Washington Post Co.green1 sentence1990Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 17-7 (1985 Supp.) See also Harrison v. Washington Post, 391 A.2d 781, 783 (D.C.1978) (defamation plaintiff must show statements were false, defamatory and published with some degree of fault). 23 *1023 As a threshold matter, the court must determine whether a statement can be construed as defamatory. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lizottegreen1 sentence1983“Some men are braver than others and less intimidated.” State v. Lizotte, 256 A.2d 439, 442 (Me.1969) (cited with approval in Postell v. United States, supra). 6 .The standardized jury instruction for this crime properly reflects the principle that to come within the statute a threat must be communicated. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lottie R. Seganish and Daniel Seganish v. District of Columbia Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989Under the common law there were two distinct standards of care owed to invitees and licensees: towards invitees, a landowner owed a duty of reasonable care, which included a duty of reasonable inspection, Seganish, supra, 132 U.S.App.D.C. at 120 , 406 F.2d at 656 ; see Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 10-5 (1981), supra note 10, while towards licensees, a landowner was merely required to refrain from active negligence. 1989Under the common law there were two distinct standards of care owed to invitees and licensees: towards invitees, a landowner owed a duty of reasonable care, which included a duty of reasonable inspection, Seganish, supra, 132 U.S.App.D.C. at 120 , 406 F.2d at 656 ; see Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 10-5 (1981), supra note 10, while towards licensees, a landowner was merely required to refrain from active negligence. | 2 | 1988–1989 |
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Ward
green
2 sentences1989Co. v. Clagett, 19 App.D.C. 12 (1901), on the ground that they had been decided prior to this court’s decisions in Blumenthal, Carney, Holland and Ward, supra, and therefore described a duty of care based on an outdated common law classification, invitee, that is no longer recognized in this jurisdiction. 12 The Sandoes argue that the abolition of the common law classifications was not intended to eliminate the landowner’s duty to make the premises reasonably safe for persons lawfully on the premises by inspecting for latent defects, and therefore the trial judge’s instruction, as well as the 1988Co. v. Clagett, 19 U.S.App.D.C. 12 (1901), on the ground that they had been decided prior to this court’s decisions in Blumenthal, Carney, Holland and Ward, supra, and therefore described a duty of care based on an outdated common law classification, invitee, that is no longer recognized in this jurisdiction. 12 The Sandoes argue that the abolition of the common law classifications was not intended to eliminate the landowner’s duty to make the premises reasonably safe for persons lawfully on the premises by inspecting for latent defects, and therefore the trial judge’s instruction, as well as | 2 | 1988–1989 |
George Washington University v. Weintraub
green
2 sentences2024There, we went on to explain “that more than de minimis violations of the Housing Regulations are required to establish breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Id. at 47 n.5; see Wright, 681 A.2d at 1105 (“In order to establish a violation of the warranty of habitability, a tenant must show that any noncompliance with the housing regulations is more than de minimis.”) (citing id. at 47 n.5)). 10 “more than de minimis” housing code violations to breach the warranty of habitability). 2024Although the standardized jury instruction uses the term “substantial violation,” it cites Weintraub, which does not use that term but rather requires landlords to “comply substantially.” Weintraub, 458 A.2d at 46 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Washington Market Co. v. Clagett
green
1 sentence1989Co. v. Clagett, 19 App.D.C. 12 (1901), on the ground that they had been decided prior to this court’s decisions in Blumenthal, Carney, Holland and Ward, supra, and therefore described a duty of care based on an outdated common law classification, invitee, that is no longer recognized in this jurisdiction. 12 The Sandoes argue that the abolition of the common law classifications was not intended to eliminate the landowner’s duty to make the premises reasonably safe for persons lawfully on the premises by inspecting for latent defects, and therefore the trial judge’s instruction, as well as the | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.