Legal Opinion
Hood v. District of Columbia
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 25, 2002No. Civ.A. 94-1792(RMU)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement
URBINA, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case requires the court to examine whether the parties had a sufficient meeting of the minds to reach a settlement on the eve of trial. Arthur Hood, ' Jessie Smith, and Susie Thomas (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) bring this action under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As three former D.C. Department of Corrections employees, the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Robert C. Hensley v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, and Alan Modliszewski, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2002
- William P. Wilson v. John G. Wilson, Thomas S. Wilson, and Fsw, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Ozyagcilar v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
- Davis v. WinfieldDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Makins v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Carroll v. Fremont Investment & LoanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Brooks v. RosebarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
- Carroll v. Fremont Investment & LoanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Golden v. Management & Training CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- Matiella v. Murdock Street LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2025
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.