Legal Opinion
Stuckey v. Ahmad
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 28, 1994No. 92-CV-1431PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Associate Judge:
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b) motion to vacate an order dismissing his case after neither he nor his counsel appeared at a scheduling conference. 1 The dismissal was predicated upon the fact that plaintiff, “having received notice of the hearing, failed to appear or to request a continuance.” 2
It is undisputed on appeal, however, and we therefore assume as established, that the sole reason that appellant’s counsel failed to appear was because no notice of the conference was ever sent to him, 3 that he was entitled to such…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Starling v. Jephunneh Lawrence & AssociatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Durham v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Johnson v. Lustine Realty Co., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Reid v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Watkins v. Carty's Automotive Electrical Center, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chapman v. NorwindDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Johnson v. BerryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Panici v. RodriguezDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Lloyd F. Ukwu, P.C. v. Bell Atlantic-Washington, D.C. Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995