Legal Opinion
Marshall v. Townsend
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 22, 1983No. 82-306PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
Appellants contest the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict, in their negligence action, on appellees’ oral motion following the conclusion of appellants’ case-in-chief. Specifically, appellants claim that the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable on the facts as presented. Finding no error, we affirm.
I
The facts are not materially in dispute. Appellants were commercial tenants on the ground floor of a building owned by appel-lees. The remaining floors consisted of unoccupied apartments.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Quin v. George Washington UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- George Washington University v. WeintraubDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- Harris v. Cafritz Memorial HospitalDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- Irene Raza v. Walter F. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
- Evans v. ByersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Otis Elevator Co. v. TuerrDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Sherman v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Mixon v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Hafferman v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1986
- Gwendolyn Y. Bell v. May Department Stores Company, a New York Corporation, D/B/A HechtsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.