Legal Opinion
Doe v. Roe
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 10, 1994No. Civ. A. 91-1403PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John H. PRATT, District Judge.
In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries allegedly resulting from the tortious communication of a sexually transmissible disease. Currently before us is defendant’s motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed.R.Civ.P.) 56. This Court, sitting by diversity, is required to apply the choice of law rules of the District of Columbia. The sole issue for purposes of this motion is to determine which substantive law applies, i.e. the law of the District of Columbia or that of Virginia. For the reasons given…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Frederick O. Gaither v. Charles R. Myers and American Motorist Insurance Co., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Acosta Orellana v. CROPLIFE INTERN.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Lakie v. SmithKline BeechamDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1997
- ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation (North America), Inc. v. National Railroad PassengerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Jackson v. Tyler's Dad's Place, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.