Legal Opinion
Scott v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 1947No. 565PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAYTON, Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals from a conviction on a charge of “leaving after colliding.” Code 1940, Supp. V, 40 — 609(a).1 The statute just cited makes it a crime for the operator of an automobile-who has caused “substantial damage” to property to leave the scene without making his identity known.
The only statement of error in the record challenges the legality of the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that there was “substantial damage” to the struck vehicle. There was evidence that defendant’s car, in making a left turn into the street where the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Nash v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Ewald v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
- In Re Krause's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Lewandoski v. FinkelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Siegman v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. GillSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966
- Lee v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- Russell v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
- United States v. LittletonNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.