District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 9/2/1981
Hilton v. United States
Citations
- 435 A.2d 383
- 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 358
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that counsel did not renew their motion for examination after the witness testified
- describing nature of privacy interest as the potential harassment resulting from the examination or the likelihood that the witness may be deterred from coming forward
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nebeker, MacK, Fer-Ren
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.