Legal Opinion
Hallums v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 12, 2004No. 98-CM-1354PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Per curiam
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons stated in Parts I and II of Judge Ruiz’s opinion for the court, and the separate concurring opinions of Judge Reid and Judge Glickman. Judge Ruiz files a separate opinion dissenting from the concurring opinions. In the concurrences affirming the judgment, Judge Reid concludes that any error was harmless, and Judge Glickman, though disagreeing with Judge Reid on that point, concludes there was no error. In her dissent, Judge Ruiz concludes there was constitutional error and that it was not harmless.
RUIZ, Associate Judge, for the court:
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- People v. VasquezNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- People v. BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. BuieNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Evans-Reid v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- In Re Ty. B.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Emanuel Jenkins and Azariah Israel v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Roy v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Smith v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.