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 1975–1981 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 |
|---|---|---|
Patterson v. Pillansgreen2 sentences1979An assault has been defined as “an attempt with force or violence to do a corporal injury to another; and may consist of any act tending to such corporal injury, accompanied with such circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with the present ability of using actual violence against the person.” Patterson v. Pillans, 43 App.D.C. 505, 506-07 (1915) quoting Hays v. People, 1 Hill 351 (N.Y.). 1979An assault has been defined as "an attempt with force or violence to do a corporal injury to another; and may consist of any act tending to such corporal injury, accompanied with such circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with the present ability of using actual violence against the person." Patterson v. Pillans, 43 App.D.C. 505, 506-07 (1915) quoting Hays v. People, 1 Hill 351 (N.Y.). | 2 | 2 |
M & R Contractors & Builders, Inc. v. Michaelgreen2 sentences1981That price, however, is only the starting point for analysis, for under Maryland law “loss of profits is generally measured by the difference between the contract price and the actual or estimated costs of full performance.” M & R Contractors & Builders, Inc. v. Michael, 215 Md. 340, 346 , 138 A.2d 350, 354 (1958); see Sergeant Co., supra 47 Md.App. at 318 , 423 A.2d at 263 . 5 The Maryland Court of Appeals has not decided how a court should apply this general rule of damages in a suit for breach of the particular type of service contract at issue here. 1981That price, however, is only the starting point for analysis, for under Maryland law “loss of profits is generally measured by the difference between the contract price and the actual or estimated costs of full performance.” M & R Contractors & Builders, Inc. v. Michael, 215 Md. 340, 346 , 138 A.2d 350, 354 (1958); see Sergeant Co., supra 47 Md.App. at 318 , 423 A.2d at 263 . 5 The Maryland Court of Appeals has not decided how a court should apply this general rule of damages in a suit for breach of the particular type of service contract at issue here. | 1 | 1 |
Sergeant Co. v. Clifton Building Corp.green2 sentences1981That price, however, is only the starting point for analysis, for under Maryland law “loss of profits is generally measured by the difference between the contract price and the actual or estimated costs of full performance.” M & R Contractors & Builders, Inc. v. Michael, 215 Md. 340, 346 , 138 A.2d 350, 354 (1958); see Sergeant Co., supra 47 Md.App. at 318 , 423 A.2d at 263 . 5 The Maryland Court of Appeals has not decided how a court should apply this general rule of damages in a suit for breach of the particular type of service contract at issue here. 1981That price, however, is only the starting point for analysis, for under Maryland law “loss of profits is generally measured by the difference between the contract price and the actual or estimated costs of full performance.” M & R Contractors & Builders, Inc. v. Michael, 215 Md. 340, 346 , 138 A.2d 350, 354 (1958); see Sergeant Co., supra 47 Md.App. at 318 , 423 A.2d at 263 . 5 The Maryland Court of Appeals has not decided how a court should apply this general rule of damages in a suit for breach of the particular type of service contract at issue here. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jeffrey Leonard Holmesgreen2 sentences1980United States v. Holmes, 537 F.2d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 1976) (bumper beeper on car). 1980United States v. Holmes, 537 F.2d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 1976) (bumper beeper on car). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Willie Bell, (Two Cases)green2 sentences1975United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 222 (D.C.Cir. 1974). 1975United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 222 (D.C.Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.