Legal Opinion
Pierola v. Moschonas
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided January 16, 1997No. 94-CV-30PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Associate Judge:
This appeal requires us to examine the jurisdictional doctrine of unique circumstances and the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. Finding that we have jurisdiction under the unique circumstances of this case and that the trial court misconceived the applicable law in denying appellant’s accord and satisfaction defense, we reverse.
I
Appellant Maximo (Tito) Pierola and ap-pellee Gerasimos (Mike) Moschonas were business associates in the mid 1980s. The precise nature of their association is the subject of this lawsuit. Both men were in the construction…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- D.D. v. M.T.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
- Howard James Moore v. South Carolina Labor BoardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Frain v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Lively v. Flexible Packaging Ass'nDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- 1618 Twenty-First Street Tenants' Ass'n v. Phillips CollectionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- In Re HaarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Beard v. District of Columbia Housing AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Eagle Maintenance Services, Inc. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.