Legal Opinion · Dissent

Capital Holding Corp. v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 18, 1977No. 9299Published

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

  1. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
  3. Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Consolidated Title Corporation, a Maryland Corporation v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API