Legal Opinion
Stinson v. Mueller
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 5, 1982No. 81-434PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
On the basis that appellant’s breach of contract claim was barred by the defense of accord and satisfaction, the trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss. Because proof of a valid accord and satisfaction is lacking, we reverse.
I
In accordance with numerous oral agreements and one written contract, appellant Stinson made a series of payments to appel-lee Mueller to perform specified renovation on appellant’s jointly owned property at 730 Columbia Road, N.W. For instance, on September 14, 1979, appellee was paid $500 to begin general rehabilitation work; on October…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marshall v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
- Bay General Industries, Inc. v. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- Voight & McMakin Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Property Redevelopment Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Keefer v. Keefer and Johnson, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- Laganas v. Installation Specialties, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pierola v. MoschonasDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- District of Columbia v. YoungDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation (North America), Inc. v. National Railroad PassengerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Weinstein v. District of Columbia Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Double H Housing Corp. v. DavidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008