Porter v. Conrad
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Per curiam
This appeal was allowed to review the application by the Municipal Court of Appeals of our decisions in Rosenberg v. Murray,1 and Hiscox v. Jackson2 in determining the limited circumstances under which t-he presumption of consent under the District of Columbia Owners’ Financial Responsibility Act, D.C.Code § 40-403 (1940), may be overcome as a matter of law. Upon our review of this case, we conclude that the Municipal Court of Appeals correctly stated and applied the governing principles laid down by this court.
We therefore adopt the opinion of the Municipal Court of Appeals, reported in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rosenberg v. MurrayCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
- Hiscox v. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Conrad v. PorterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951
3Cited by2 opinions
- Emory M. Jones, Sr. v. John HalunCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
- Jasper Porter v. J. Fairfax ConradCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952