Legal Opinion

Holland v. Capital Transit Co.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 24, 1955No. 1629PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

We are asked to review an order of the trial court refusing to reinstate a case which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The suit charged that plaintiff was injured because of th'e sudden stopping of a street car on which she was a passenger. The incident allegedly happened more than eight and a half years ago. Plaintiff filed her suit in the United States District Court on October 11," 1950, one day’before her claim Would have been barred,by limitations. In that court the pretrial judge, being of the opinion that the action would not jústify a judgment in excess…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holland v. Capital Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
  2. Dickson v. MarshallDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
  3. Gee How Oak Tin Ass'n v. Potomac Chemicals Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1954
  4. Miller v. IskovitzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Murphy v. A.A. Beiro Construction Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Murphy v. A.A. Beiro Construction Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API