Alston v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “an examination into the subjective reaction of one specific teller is ... inappropriate” because it risks “creating] a windfall for defendants who fortuitously selected to victimize a bank teller with an unusually thick skin”
• concluding that “an examination into the subjective reaction of one specific teller is . . . inappropriate” because it risks “creat[ing] a windfall for defendants who fortuitously selected to victimize a bank teller with an unusually thick skin”
• concluding that “an examination into the subjective reaction of one specific teller is . . . inappropriate” because it risks “creat[ing] a windfall for defendants who fortuitously selected to victimize a bank teller with an unusually thick skin”
• surmising “that there could be circumstances that would sufficiently dilute the phrase ‘I have a gun’ so that it would not qualify as a death threat,” such as where “a bank robber claimed to have a gun but brandished what was quite obviously a toy”
• surmising “that there could be circumstances that would sufficiently dilute the phrase T have a gun’ so that it would not qualify as a death threat,” such as where “a bank robber claimed to have a gun but brandished what was quite obviously a toy”
• surmising “that there could be circumstances that would sufficiently dilute the phrase ‘I have a gun’ so that it would not qualify as a death threat,” such as where “a bank robber claimed to have a gun but brandished what was quite obviously a toy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).