Legal Opinion
Thompson v. Seton Investments
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 25, 1987No. 85-1319PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
Appellant Queen E. Thompson appeals from a grant of summary judgment on the grounds that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action and there were no disputed issues of fact. We reverse and remand.
I
By amended and verified complaint, Thompson sought a declaratory judgment that the $42,000 loan she had obtained from appellee, Seton Investments (“Seton”), violated the Interest Rate Ceiling Amendment Act, D.C.Code § 28-3301 et seq. (1986 Supp.) (“Act”). She alleged that Seton knew she intended to use the loan for residential purposes, but that Seton forced her…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nader v. De ToledanoDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Williams v. GerstenfeldDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. LauferDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Lynch v. Meridian Hill Studio Apts., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Spellman v. American Security Bank, N.A.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Beckman v. FarmerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Raskauskas v. Temple Realty Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Johnson v. Fairfax Village Condominium IV Unit Owners Ass'nDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Clay v. HansonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.