Legal Opinion
Plunkett v. Gill
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 17, 1972No. 4596 OriginalPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
Applicants seek the leave of this court to appeal pursuant to D.C.Code 1967, § 11-721(d) (Supp. IV, 1971), the trial judge having made the requisite certification. 1 Since this case is one of the first to raise that issue under the new interlocutory appeals provision, it is appropriate that we point out to the trial court the limited use for which that provision was intended. In so doing, we deny the instant application because, as a matter of law, this case is inappropriate for interlocutory review under § 11-721(d).
Respondent brought suit against the applicants in the Landlord and Tenant…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Herbert Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc., and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- United States Rubber Company v. Francis WrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Rita Gottesman v. General Motors Corporation and E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Costas Hadjipateras, Nicholas Hadjipateras and Dimitri Dracos v. Pacifica, S. A., and George TsakalotosCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- Ex Parte Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., Ex Parte Aetna Casualty & Surety CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Brandon v. HinesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Crown Oil & Wax Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Hewsen v. LynchDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
- Grace v. GalvagnaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Brandon v. HinesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.