Cevern, Inc. v. Ferbish
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentRuiz, Associate Judge
It is undisputed that at the time Cevern and the homeowners entered into their contract and Cevern accepted an advance payment, Cevern had done everything necessary to obtain its home improvement contractor’s license, except pay the requisite fee. Most of the work Cevern performed was done after it had obtained its license. Nevertheless, in the name of an “unyielding rule” of its own making, the majority holds that Cevern is entitled to nothing for the effort and resources it expended in performing the contract, even for work performed after it was licensed. To my mind, that unyielding rule…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Kilbourn v. SunderlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Brown v. Southall Realty CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1968
- Truitt v. MillerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Schloss v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.