Legal Opinion
Wagshal v. Rigler
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 14, 1998No. 96-CV-549PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN, Associate Judge:
Unlike its federal counterpart, Superior Court Civil Rule 4(m) requires that both service of process and the filing of proof of such service be accomplished within sixty days of the filing of every civil complaint. On April 28, 1995, appellant Jerome S. Wag-shal, a retired attorney appearing pro se, filed suit against appellees Douglas V. Rigler and Julius Kaplan, also pro se attorneys. 1 Wagshal served process on Kaplan and Ri-gler on June 15 and June 22, 1995, respectively, within sixty days after the filing of the complaint. However, he did not file proof of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- In re D.R.M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Abell v. Laihsing WangDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Johnson v. Marcheta Investors Ltd. PartnershipDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Cameron v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Purcell v. ThomasDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Gross Ex Rel. Spears v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- Bolton v. Bernabei & Katz, PLLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Neill v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- Long v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.