Legal Opinion

Nowak v. Trezevant

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 27, 1996No. 94-FM-448, 94-FM-459PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TERRY, Associate Judge:

Appellant 1 seeks review of two trial court orders, both entered on the same date. The first, a nunc pro tunc consent order, incorporated an oral agreement reached by the parties on the record, in open court, at a hearing held three years earlier. The second, which was based on the oral agreement and the consent order, denied appellant’s motion for contempt and mandatory withholding of child support payments. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by entering the nunc pro tunc consent order and by denying her contempt motion without a hearing. We…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Washington Medical Center, Inc. v. HolleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Hackes v. HackesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Moore v. JonesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Burnette v. VoidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Curtis v. GordonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Sollars v. CullyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API