Gallimore v. Washington
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentSchwelb, Associate Judge
This case requires us to consider two long-established legal maxims and, if possible, to find a way to accommodate them both. I refer to these maxims as Nos. I and II.
Maxim I, which sounds especially formidable in the Latin original,1 and which, while “deeply rooted in our jurisprudence,” remains very much alive today, see Farris v. Compton, 652 A.2d 49, 55 (D.C.1994), teaches us that “no man may take advantage of his own wrong.” Glus v. Brooklyn E. Dist. Terminal, 359 U.S. 231, 232, 79 S.Ct. 760, 762, 3 L.Ed.2d 770 (1959). Maxim II, also of ancient vintage, instructs that “[ejquity abhors…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Farris v. ComptonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. LauferDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Ellis v. James v. Hurson Associates, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.