Legal Opinion
District of Columbia v. Arnold & Porter
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 27, 2000No. 97-CV-1967, 97-CV-1968, 97-CV-1993, 97-CV-1994, 97-CV-1995, 97-CV-1996, 97-CV-1997, 98-CV-264, 98-CV-265, 98-CV-266, 98-CV-267, 98-CV-268, 98-CV-269, 98-CV-292, 98-CV-411, 98-CV-412PublishedCited by 77 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REID, Associate Judge:
These cases involve a negligence action against the appellant, the District of Columbia, by appellees, certain business entities and their insurers, who claimed damages resulting from the rupture of a water main pipe at 21st and M Streets, N.W., in the District. The rupture caused flooding of the streets and the buildings where the business entities were located. After a phase one bench liability trial, the tidal judge found the District negligent. However, the claims of some of the business entities, including that of appellee Ar nold & Porter, were dismissed for…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- District of Columbia v. WhiteDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Toy v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- In Re MeltonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Wesby v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- Briggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Beeton v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Varner v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Snowder v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.