Legal Opinion
Varela v. Hi-Lo Powered Stirrups, Inc.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 28, 1980No. 79-477PublishedCited by 90 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
We consider in this case the question of what interpretation is to be given to Super. Ct.Civ.R. 3 (hereinafter Rule 3); more specifically, we must decide whether the filing of a complaint, without more, tolls the applicable statute of limitations. The pertinent facts of this case are simple: appellant Varela filed his complaint before the statutory period of limitations ran but did not attempt service (by certified mail) until three days after the period had run. 1 The trial court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss this action based on the statute of limitations.
In Part…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. HeimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Crooks v. HarrelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by90 opinions
- Hobson v. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- Kuwait Airways Corporation v. American Security Bank, N.A. And First American Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Roland Riddell v. Riddell Washington CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
- Blodgett v. University ClubDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.