Legal Opinion · Dissent
Cunningham & Associates v. Dugan
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 30, 1996No. 94-CV-500Published
1DissentWagner, Chief Judge
A de novo review of the record, which we are obligated to conduct,1 leads inescapably to the conclusion that reversal is required because Ernst & Young is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law before answer on its defense of limitations. The undisputed facts of record show that on December 1, 1990 and September 12, 1991, Cunningham rendered to Ernst & Young a statement for the balance claimed due for services in the amount of $78,382.63 and that Ernst & Young made two payments by check on the debt thereafter. Ernst & Young made one payment on September 12, 1991 for $19,993.36, and the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. LauferDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Nickens v. Labor Agency of Metropolitan WashingtonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- McBryde v. Amoco Oil Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Aronoff v. Lenkin Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.