Legal Opinion · Dissent

Joyner v. Holland

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided August 2, 1965No. 3717Published

1DissentMyers, Associate Judge

(dissenting) :

I must disagree with my associates’ decision upholding imposition of liability by the trial court upon appellant under the Automobile Financial Responsibility Act (40 D.C.Code, 1961 § 424).

The majority opinion recites the common law rule that “proof that the automobile was owned by the defendant at the time of the accident establishes a prima facie case for the plaintiff.” This rule was laid down in Curry v. Stevenson, 58 App.D.C. 162, 163, 26 F.2d 534, 535 (1928), a case decided before the statute in question was enacted *543and involving singular ownership of the vehicle involved.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Casey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Caplan v. CaplanNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
  3. Krum v. MalloyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Fox v. LavenderUtah Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Curry v. StevensonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API