Legal Opinion

Liss v. Feld

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided March 27, 1997No. 95-CV-1330PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KING, Associate Judge:

Appellant Fulton Liss contends that a praecipe rejecting an arbitration award and demanding trial de novo, which was filed on his behalf in the Civil Division after-hours box within the time frame specified by the governing rule, was timely filed, and that the arbitration judgment entered against him after the praecipe was not forwarded to the Multi-Door Division office was improperly entered. We agree and therefore hold that, under the circumstances, the appellant’s praecipe was timely filed and the arbitration judgment was entered in violation of the arbitration rules…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance Co. v. RobinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Howard & Hoffman, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Siddiq v. OstheimerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. District of Columbia v. GramkowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Perry v. Gallaudet UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API