Legal Opinion
Emerine v. Yancey
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 8, 1996No. 94-CV-791PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
The principal issue in this appeal is whether defendant-appellant Richard Emerine was denied his right to trial by jury after the trial court allowed amendment of the complaint, over Emerine’s objection, during a bench trial. We hold that because the amendment did not raise any issue that Emerine did not anticipate or could not have anticipated in fight of the allegations of the original complaint, for which he did not demand a jury trial, he was not denied his right to trial by jury. Because we find no merit in Emerine’s other contentions on appeal, we affirm.
I
Appellant,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Henry S. Bloomgarden v. Charles B. CoyerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
- City of Morgantown v. Royal InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Rosenthal v. National Produce Co., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Vereen v. ClayborneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Scott v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Paul v. Howard UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- APA Assessment Fee Litigation v. American Psychological Assoc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2000
- Mark Shaffer v. George Washington UniversityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2022
- Sarete, Inc. v. 1344 U Street Ltd. PartnershipDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.