Legal Opinion
Urciolo v. Urciolo
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 28, 1982No. 80-999PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
This is an appeal from the Superior Court’s refusal to permit counsel to appear on behalf of an otherwise pro se litigant for the limited purpose of arguing a motion. Appellant claims that this court has jurisdiction to entertain his appeal and that the lower court’s refusal to allow his chosen counsel to appear on his behalf constituted an abuse of discretion. 1 We agree and thus vacate the trial judge’s order and remand for a new hearing.
I
The plaintiffs below sued appellant and his brother as co-trustees, alleging their failure to account and convey to them as…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Michael F. Armstrong v. Clovis McAlpinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Charles Glueck v. Jonathan Logan, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In Re Estate of ChuongDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Jenkins v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- McDiarmid v. McDiarmidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Lynn v. LynnDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Kaplan v. PointerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.