Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)

Citation
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Parent Document
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2013-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text

921 chars
To be clear, we do not mean to suggest that any document submitted to a court may later be treated as an adoptive admission. In both civil and criminal cases, whether a party has adopted or manifested a belief in the truth of a document that the party has submitted to a court will depend heavily on context. See Harris, 834 A.2d at 122-23 (remanding for further consideration of “fact-specific” question whether prosecution, by approving warrant application, had “necessarily implied] agreement with the entire contents of the affidavit” submitted in support of application). Our holding thus reflects the specific circumstances of this case: by presenting to the court a sworn affidavit that made factual representations about Mr. Clark’s own conduct, and by seeking dismissal of this case based on those factual representations, Mr. Clark clearly manifested his belief in the truth of those factual representations. 3.