Legal Opinion
Alexander v. Polinger Co.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 1, 1985No. 84-825PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
Appellants-tenants appeal the denial of a motion under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b)(4) to vacate default judgments for possession. They contend the judgments are void ab initio because service was not effected in accordance with Super.Ct. L & T R. 4. Hence, they contend a question about the validity of service existed which prohibited the clerk from entering the default judgments under Super.Ct. L & T R. 11. The trial court ruled that although the returns of service did not comply with the requirements of L & T Rule 4, in the absence of any affidavits by the tenants averring…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Greene v. LindseySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Noble v. Union River Logging RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Dewey v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- V. T. A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- Winfield Associates, Inc. v. W. L. StonecipherCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Miranda v. ContrerasDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Jones v. HershDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Nuyen v. LunaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Jones v. Health Resources Corp. of AmericaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.