Legal Opinion
De Bobula v. Coppedge
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 14, 1944No. 232PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAYTON, Associate Judge.
Plaintiffs obtained at the hands of a jury a verdict for possession of dwelling property. Their suit was based upon the claim that they desired the property for their immediate personal use as a dwelling, this being one of the grounds which under the Emergency Rent Act1 entitles an owner to possession. In this appeal defendant assails the judgment on several grounds.
1. The complaint did not allege that the proceeding was “in good faith” and defendant urges that the suit should have been dismissed because of that omission. The Rent Act does not require good faith to be…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Ritchie v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1944
- Hamilton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
- Lester v. IsaacCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Morrison v. HutchinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1944
- Rogers v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- O'NEIL v. BerganDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Staves v. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
- Hicks v. BigelowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
- De Bobula v. GossCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951
- Reese v. WellsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.