Legal Opinion
Rosinski v. Whiteford
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided October 2, 1950No. 10204_1PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Courts once refused to receive testimony from any witness interested in the result of a case. That rule was largely abrogated in the District of Columbia many years ago. Act of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 374, D.C.Code (1940) § 14 — 301. But until 1948, a remnant of the old rule prevented a surviving person from testifying about a transaction with a deceased person in a suit against his representative. D.C.Code (1940) § 14 — 302. In 1948 Congress amended § 14 — 302. It now enables the surviving party to testify, but limits the effect of his testimony. The amendment provides…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Varner v. WhiteSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- Bujac v. WilsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
- Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. CardilloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Shenandoah Valley Natl. Bank v. LineburgSupreme Court of Virginia · 1942
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Allen Powell, A/K/A Keith BatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Larsen v. Marzall, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
- Pekofsky v. BlalockDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1961
- Santucci v. PignatelloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
- Toliver v. DurhamDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.