Legal Opinion

Petty v. Rowe

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1952No. 1253PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Claiming that his landlord had charged as rent for an apartment more than the amount allowable under the Rent Control Act of 1951, Code 1951, Supp. I, 45-1601, et seq., a tenant sued under said Act for $1340 representing twice the amount of such alleged overcharges. The record recites that after plaintiff had rested his case “defendant moved for a directed verdict” and that the trial judge granted such motion. This appeal followed.

We shall take a moment to point out, as has been done in earlier cases, that in a trial without a jury a “motion for directed verdict” is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Taylor v. United Broadcasting Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
  2. Fields v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1905

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. Evans v. ByersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. Keefer v. Keefer and Johnson, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. District of Columbia v. TilghmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1960
  5. Hamilton v. BlankenshipDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1961

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API