Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rufus and Delores Stancil v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Association

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided March 13, 2014No. 12-CV-1382Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNebeker, Senior Judge

I would affirm the judgment and not reform the litigation into an action not contemplated by the parties or the trial court. While I join the majority opinion as to count II, I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ decision to remand counts III, IV, V, and VI. I believe a remand is unnecessary, because the, Stancils failed to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or breach of an oral contract, and it would- be futile to afford them a second opportunity to do so. The majority seems to, believe that, >by allowing the Stancils-a second try at pleading their case, it is serving…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hansford P. Miller v. Jackson AviromCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
  2. Bennett v. KigginsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. United States Ex Rel. Raynor v. National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance, Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
  4. Conrad v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  5. Dresser v. Sunderland Apartments Tenants Ass'nDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983

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

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

Powered by the Exa API