Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Quattlebaum v. Barry
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 21, 1995No. 92-CV-504Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFerren, Associate Judge
I join Part I of the majority opinion after reconsideration of our analysis at division. See Quattlebaum v. Kelly, 648 A.2d 950, 954-57 (D.C.1994), vacated, 656 A.2d 728 (D.C. 1995). I also join the part of the disposition in Part III that reinstates the division opinion on the notice issue and remands for further trial court consideration as specified by the division. See id., 648 A.2d at 957-58 & n. 19. I respectfully dissent, however, from Part II of the majority opinion that treats the claimed procedural violation. As I see it, in 1991 the Council of the District of Columbia unlawfully…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Rosado v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Glenn T. SeaborgCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
- Speyer v. BarryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.