Legal Opinion
Bates v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 31, 1994No. 91-AA-1280PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TERRY, Associate Judge:
Following the grant of a variance to inter-venors by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), petitioners John and Ellen Bates filed in this court a timely petition for review of that decision. A third party, Phil Mendelson, then moved for leave to intervene on the side of the petitioners. Shortly thereafter, and before the court could rule on Mendelson’s motion for leave to intervene, petitioners sent a letter to the court seeking to withdraw from the case, and intervenors filed a paper suggesting that this letter be construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jacqueline M. Harris, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor-Appellant v. Amoco Production Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union No. 730District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Kopff v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
- Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & EthicsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Paper Company, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re Appeals of GarenSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
- Industrial Communications & Electronics, Inc. v. Town of AltonDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2010
- Ind. Comm. v. Alton & Ind.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2010