Legal Opinion

McNeely v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 12, 2005No. 98-CF-924PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUIZ, Associate Judge:

Robert McNeely appeals convictions on two counts of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act of 1996 (the “Pit Bull Act” or “Act”). See D.C. Act 11-257, 43 D.C.Reg. 2156 (Apr. 16, 1996), amending D.C.Code § 6-1021.6(b) (1995), re-codified at D.C.Code § 8-1906(b) (2001). He argues that his convictions should be reversed because the Pit Bull Act denies due process of law and because the prosecutor engaged in improper closing and rebuttal arguments. In support of the former claim, McNeely contends, first, that the Pit Bull Act…

2Cases cited74 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Conley v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Girma Aboye v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Tracey v. SoleskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  4. Bean v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. Dean v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API