Legal Opinion
District of Columbia v. Gramkow
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 24, 1998No. Nos. 95CV-1635, 97-CV-1007PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge.
This appeal requires us to decide whether a party to a non-binding arbitration1 who then files a timely demand for trial de novo with the Civil Division, not the Multi-Door Division as specified in Super.Ct.Civ.Arb.R. XI(b), forfeits the right to a trial, resulting in entry of the arbitration award as a judgment of the court. In Liss v. Feld, 691 A.2d 145 (D.C.1997), we were able to avoid the issue because the timely filing with the Civil Division was sufficient for another reason: since after-hours filings were not then possible in the Multi-Door Division,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Service v. DullesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Andrade v. JacksonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Ali Baba Co., Inc. v. Wilco, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- In re C. I. T.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johnson v. Capital City Mortgage Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- Montgomery v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999