Legal Opinion
GEORGE HYMAN CONST. CO., INC. v. DiNicola
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 12, 1986No. 82-511, 82-564 and 82-565PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FERREN, Associate Judge:
Appellant, Russell DiNicola, contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion for prejudgment interest in this tort action. Appellee, George Hyman Construction Company, Inc., replies that in the District of Columbia prejudgment interest is not available in tort actions. Hyman adds that, because appellant has accepted payment of the judgment, he is precluded in any event from challenging on appeal the denial of prejudgment interest. We conclude that, even if prejudgment interest were awarda-ble in a tort action — an issue we do not decide — it would be an element…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Edmund J. Flynn Co. v. LaVayDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. Harmon's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Schneider v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
- District of Columbia v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Duggan v. KetoDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Williams Enterprises, Inc., and Strait Manufacturing and Welding, Inc. v. The Sherman R. Smoot CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991
- Romero v. ITW Food Equipment Group LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015