Capital Holding Corp. v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1DissentMack, Associate Judge
I do not see the logic of remanding for a finding as to the alternative of a two-part disjunctive proviso where a finding has been previously made as to the other alternative. I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In my opinion, the circuit court’s decision in Consolidated Title Corporation v. District of Columbia, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 275 F.2d 885, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 817, 81 S.Ct. 48, 5 L.Ed.2d 48 (1960), is controlling here, and unless and until this court reconsiders the issue en bane,1 we are bound by its interpretation of “sources” in D.C.Code 1973, § 47-1571a. Under this view…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Consolidated Title Corporation, a Maryland Corporation v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960