Legal Opinion
Goldsmith v. William S. Bergman Associates, Inc.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 26, 1998No. 95-CV-1650PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
This ease is the second incarnation of a dispute between two creditors, appellant, Charles F. Goldsmith, a general partner of Midcity Investment Company (“Mideity”), and appellees, William S. Bergman Associates (“WSBA”) and Sherman, Meehan & Curtin, P.C. (“SMC”), WSBA’s counsel. On appeal, Goldsmith, on behalf of Midcity, alleges that the trial court erred in quashing Midcity’s writ of attachment on moneys owed to WSBA and in denying Goldsmith’s motion for judgment of condemnation of such moneys. Although we agree that the writ of attachment was properly quashed to the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Cache Valley Bank Intermountain Region Concrete Construction Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Consumers United Insurance v. SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Monarch Life Insurance Company v. Martha S. ElamCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1990
- First Virginia Bank v. Vera Randolph, United States of America and U.S. Department of StateCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fields v. TillersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- Chernovitz v. Preston Trucking Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- Rosenberg v. Meriden Housing Authority, No. Cv95 0377376 (Oct. 29, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999
- Scheurer v. Probot Incorportated, No. 389799 (Jul. 16, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999
- Vector Realty Group, Inc. v. 711 Fourteenth Street, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998