Legal Opinion
Akers v. Tomlinson
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 20, 1966No. 3924PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
QUINN, Associate Judge.
Appellant (plaintiff below) sued to recover damages resulting from an automobile accident. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court found that the case involved an “emergency situation” and that appellant had not “carried the burden of proving negligence by the preponderance of the evidence.”
The record shows that immediately preceding the accident, at least three cars were traveling west on P Street and had stopped for a red light at the intersection of P and Twentieth Streets, Northwest. Appellant was drivng the second vehicle and appellee, the third. When the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Julia T. Cellini v. Edward K. MossCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
- Price Ex Rel. National Retailers Mut. Ins. v. DerricksonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1952
- Jarvis v. BosticCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1935
- Newman v. EisenbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
- Jeffers v. FosterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1962
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pazmino v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Fisher v. BestDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Montague v. HendersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Wilson v. BrameDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1967
- Nugent v. CurryDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.