Shutack v. Shutack

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Shutack

    469 A.2d 427 (D.C. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    The District Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the trust matters lay in the Superior Court pursuant to the provisions of the Court Reform Act and granted the motion.Shutack v. Shutack, 516 F. Supp. 219 (D.D.C. 1981). The subject trust was the Tyree Trust.

  2. Odutola v. Floyd

    1:21-cv-3212-RCL (D.D.C. Sep. 23, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    The jurisdictional distinction between District of Columbia law and federal law is functionally the same for the District of Columbia as the jurisdictional distinction between any State court and the accompanying federal district courts of that State. See Shutack v. Shutack, 516 F.Supp. 219, 225 (D.D.C. 1981) (describing the jurisdiction of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to be “equivalent to a hypothetical state trial court with jurisdiction in the state over all court business ... .”); D.C. Ass'n of Chartered Pub. Sch. v. D.C., 930 F.3d 487, 491 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (explaining that “laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia” do not provide federal question jurisdiction (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1366)). Of course, the District of Columbia is in a somewhat unique position compared to a State.

  3. Cornish v. Dist. of Columbia

    67 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that complaint plausibly alleged equal work when it claimed that plaintiff "performed job functions 'that require or entail substantially the same skill, effort, and responsibility' as at least three specifically-referenced men"

    reorganized the court system in the District of Columbia and established one set of courts in the District with Art. III characteristics and devoted to matters of national concern [and] created a wholly separate court system designed primarily to concern itself with local law and to serve as a local court system for a large metropolitan area. As the Mapp Court explained, “[f]rom its inception in 1836 until 1970, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia served the dual roles of a local and federal court, ‘hear[ing] and decid [ing] the full range of local common law and equitable questions, in addition to its regular calendar of federal questions and diversity actions.’ ” Mapp, 993 F.Supp.2d at 27, 2014 WL 1664022, at *1 (quoting Shutack v. Shutack, 516 F.Supp. 219, 221 (D.D.C.1981) ).Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 408, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973).

  4. Mapp v. District of Columbia

    Civil No. 13-329 (RCL) (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the broad power the DCHRA gives District of Columbia executive agencies to remedy discrimination in all aspects of employment "fatally conflicts" with the 1970 District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act (the "Court Reorganization Act" ) and the 1973 District of Columbia Home Rule Act (the "Home Rule Act" )

    From its inception in 1836 until 1970, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia served the dual roles of a local and federal court, "hear[ing] and decid[ing] the full range of local common law and equitable questions, in addition to its regular calendar of federal questions and diversity actions." Shutack v. Shutack, 516 F. Supp. 219, 221 (D.D.C. 1981). In 1970, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act, Pub.L.No.91-358, Title I, 84 Stat. 475, which