Legal Opinion
Hackett v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 20, 1970No. 4893PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Chief Judge.
Appellant, while proceeding across a crosswalk, stepped on a maiihole cover and fell partially into the manhole. She brought suit against the District of Columbia, the owner of the manhole. The trial court sitting with a jury directed a verdict against appellant at the close of her case. Thus our review is concerned with whether, on a most favorable view of appellant’s evidence, “there is any [evidence] upon which a jury could properly find a verdict for the party upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” Baker v. D. C. Transit System, Inc., D.C.App., 248 A.2d 829, 831 (1969).
2Cases cited13 opinions
- District of Columbia v. ArmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- District of Columbia v. WoodburySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. HickeyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1943
- Hecht Co., Inc. v. JacobsenCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- Jones v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- District of Columbia v. DoeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Shehyn v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
- District of Columbia v. FowlerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. DavisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Sherman v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.