Legal Opinion
Johnson v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 2, 1995No. 92-CV-38PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellant contends the trial court erred: (1) by not exempting appellant’s expert witness from the trial court’s sequestration of all witnesses; (2) by allowing appellee’s counsel, over objection, to assert in his opening statement that appellant was contributorily negligent; and (3) by denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
On January 17, 1990, appellant, while being arrested during a domestic conflict, sustained a severe eye injury that resulted in the removal of his right eye. Appellant filed a complaint on July 3, 1990, alleging that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lena v. Morvant, Etc. v. Construction Aggregates CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1978
- District of Columbia v. PetersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- United States v. Joseph LussierCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Malek v. Federal Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Burke v. Deere & Co., AKA John Deere CoSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Garmon v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Dean v. GarlandDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Astill v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1998
- Williams v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Cynthia Sanchez v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.