Legal Opinion
Goldberg v. Roumel
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 14, 1944No. 231PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAYTON, Associate Judge.
Appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff’s second amended particulars of demand. The motion to dismiss was based on two grounds: (1) That the particulars of demand failed to state a cause of action, and (2) that the relief demanded was less than the minimum jurisdiction of the court. In granting the motion the trial judge filed no memorandum and assigned no reason. We must hold the dismissal to have been erroneous.
In the Municipal Court there are three classes of so-called “debt” actions: (1) Those of Class A, where the amount claimed exceeds $500 but is within the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Minick v. Associates Inv. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
- Harris v. SeidellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Ross v. McDougalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Merchants Bank v. AffholterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Kunkel v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hirshon v. WhelanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
- Simons v. Federal Bar Building CorporationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Joseph M. Whelan, T/a Cecil's Bakery v. Sydney HirshonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1956
- De Bobula v. CoppedgeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1944
- Evans v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.