Legal Opinion · Concurrence

B.F. Saul Co. v. Tiefenbacher

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 22, 2011No. 11-CV-565Published

1ConcurrenceOberly, Associate Judge

I join in the result reached by the court in this case, holding that the landlord’s appeal from the trial court’s refusal to modify its order so as to release funds that the tenants are paying into the court registry while the underlying matter is still pending before the Rental Housing Commission must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. I agree with the majority that landlords must satisfy the same two-part test established for tenants in McQueen v. Lustine Realty Co., 547 A.2d 172 (D.C.1988) (en banc), which requires tenants seeking review to show that absent an interlocutory…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Carson v. American Brands, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. McQueen v. Lustine Realty Co., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Graham v. LANIER ASSOCIATESDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API