Legal Opinion
Stuart v. Walker
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 28, 2010No. 09-CV-900PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Chief Judge:
Appellant Pamela Stuart brought this suit in Superior Court to recover attorney’s fees from her former client, appellee Barbara Walker. Walker moved to compel arbitration of the case pursuant to District of Columbia Bar Rule XIII (“Rule XIII”), which mandates binding arbitration of all attorney-client fee disputes in the District of Columbia. The Superior Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending an arbitral judgment. Stuart then filed this appeal, in which the District of Columbia intervened as a party, from the order granting compelled arbitration and now…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Andrade v. JacksonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Central Labor CouncilDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Umana v. Swidler & Berlin, CharteredDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Crown Oil & Wax Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND RAND SIMBERG v. MICHAEL E. MANN, NATIONAL REVIEW, INC. v. MICHAEL E. MANNDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- Shirley Sherrod v. Andrew BreitbartCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2013
- GMAC v. PittellaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
- ROSANNE L. WOODROOF v. JOSEPH F. CUNNINGHAMDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- BiotechPharma, LLC v. Ludwig & Robinson, PLLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.