Legal Opinion
Reid v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 2, 1993No. 92-CV-721PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SULLIVAN, Associate Judge:
Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to reinstate their case under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b). The motion to reinstate followed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of appellants’ case on February 7,1992 when neither appellants nor their attorney attended an initial scheduling and settlement conference. 1 We reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.
We recently reiterated the principle of longstanding that the decision to deny or grant a party’s Rule 60(b) motion is within the discretion of the trial court.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Starling v. Jephunneh Lawrence & AssociatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Jones v. HuntDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1972
- Durham v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Joseph v. ParekhDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
- Solomon v. Fairfax Village Condominium IV Unit Owner's Ass'nDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Puckrein v. JenkinsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Nuyen v. LunaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Johnson v. BerryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Ripalda v. American Operations Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Panici v. RodriguezDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.