Legal Opinion
Williams v. City Stores Company
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 12, 1963No. 3209PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MYERS, Associate Judge.
After an opening statement to the jury by counsel for plaintiff in an action against a department store and its collection agency to recover damages upon three theories— (1) malicious prosecution (wrongful attachment) ; (2) malicious abuse of process; and (3) fraud — there were directed verdicts for both defendants by the trial judge who ruled that plaintiff had stated no cause of action. In reaching his decision he considered not only the opening statement but also the amended complaint. This appeal ensued.
Marshall, a collection agency employed by Lansburgh’s to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Melvin v. PenceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Hornblower v. George Washington UniversityCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1908
- Italian Star Line, Inc. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Hall v. Field Enterprises, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Michael McCarthy Arthur Waskow v. Richard G. KleindienstCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Washington Medical Center, Inc. v. HolleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Cook v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- Fite v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
- Amabello v. Colonial MotorsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.