Legal Opinion
Kirschner v. Klavik
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 28, 1962No. 3039PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MYERS, Associate Judge.
Appellee Klavik, an architectural draftsman, and his employer, Goenner, a registered architect in Maryland, brought this action to recover for architectural services performed for the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Kirschner, pursuant to an oral contract. The trial court found for Klavik but against the employer, who is not a party to this appeal.
The Kirschners’ primary contention here is that appellee is precluded from recovery as the contract was illegal because Klavik was not a licensed architect as required by the State of Maryland 1 where the services were rendered.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schloss v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Rubin v. DouglasDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
- Holiday Homes, Inc. v. BrileyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1956
- Van Meter v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
3Cited by16 opinions
- Brown v. Southall Realty CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1968
- William J. Davis, Inc. v. SladeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1970
- Gagnon v. WrightDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1964
- Miller v. Peoples Contractors, Ltd.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1969
- Fischer v. Estate of FlaxDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.