Legal Opinion
Shamey v. Hickey
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 29, 1981No. 80-28PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, Associate Judge:
In this case, we granted an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court because appellant has shown “a question of law which has not been but should be decided by this court.” Karath v. Generalis, D.C.App., 277 A.2d 650, 651 (1971). That question is whether appellee’s conduct in bringing this action against appellant constituted unauthorized practice of law. We find that it did and remand the case to the trial court for dismissal of appellee’s complaint.1
*1112Appellant contracted with appellee’s company, Bethesda…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1974
- J. H. Marshall & Associates, Inc. v. BurlesonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1973
- Nelson v. SmithUtah Supreme Court · 1944
- Karath v. GeneralisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Mercu-Ray Industries, Inc. v. Bristol-Meyers CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
3Cited by15 opinions
- Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Snow v. Capitol Terrace, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Brookens v. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of LawDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- Bischoff v. WaldorfDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2009
- Moore Energy Resources, Inc. v. Public Service CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.