Legal Opinion
Hager v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 9, 1984No. 83-500PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TERRY, Associate Judge:
Petitioner seeks review of a decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. The only contention made by petitioner in this court is that the ALJ applied an erroneous definition of the word “willful” in concluding that he had willfully breached certain warranties. We reject his contention and affirm the decision of the AU. |
In 1979 petitioner sold a house to Garrett and Donna Cpitwood. A clause in the contract of sale provided that “[t]he premises, appliances and certain systems shall be warranted as stated in the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Spies v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. MurdockSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Robert W. Monday v. United States of America, and Third-Party v. John A. Monday, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Townsend v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- American Surety Co. v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schlank v. WilliamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Mannan v. District of Columbia Board of MedicineDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. GaubatzDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Barbour v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Pritch v. HenryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.