Legal Opinion
Goldsten v. Burka
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 7, 1945No. 304PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOOD, Associate Judge.
The facts of this case, as found by the trial judge from conflicting evidence, are substantially the following: Appellants, real estate brokers representing a Mrs. Davis, advertised her house for sale. Ap-pellee answered the advertisement and was shown the house by appellant Robert E: Goldsten. During inspection of the property, appellee, having heard that some houses in the vicinity were served by septic tanks instead of public sewers, inquired of Goldsten if the Davis house was connected with a public sewer. Goldsten replied that the property was served by public sewer…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Shappirio v. GoldbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Smith v. O'ConnorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
- King v. LambornCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1911
- Seek v. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Graziani v. ArundellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1924
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lopata v. MillerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Spargnapani v. WrightDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1954
- Tucker v. BeazleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
- Allen v. OverturfSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
- Simmons v. BrooksDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.