Legal Opinion
Sullivan v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 24, 2003No. 00-CV-664PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WAGNER, Chief Judge:
The question presented in this appeal, one of first impression in this jurisdiction, is whether a guardian ad litem appointed by the court for a party in a civil action may be compensated from the Guardianship Fund established pursuant to D.C.Code § 21-2060 (2003). We hold that in order to receive compensation from the Guardianship Fund, a guardian ad litem must render services pursuant to the Guardianship, Protective Proceedings and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986 (Guardianship Act) (as amended), D.C.Code §§ 21-2001, -2085 (2003), in a guardianship or protective…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- United States v. GoldenbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Davis v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Varela v. Hi-Lo Powered Stirrups, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- Andrade v. JacksonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Veney v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Roosevelt Whitfield v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- Williams v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Ventura v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Clark Construction Group, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and John ChavisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.