Legal Opinion
Bender v. Williams
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 30, 2004No. 02-CV-454PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
Following a bench trial, Judge Mize ruled for the defendants in this suit brought by plaintiff/appellant (Bender) to recover certain pass-through expenses-— namely, Consumer Price Index (CPI) and real estate tax increases — for which he claimed the defendants were hable under commercial leases they had executed with his predecessor in interest in August 1986. On appeal, Bender contends that Judge Mize failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Super. Ct. Civ. Rules 41(b) and 52(a); erred in finding that Bender had failed to prove his damages with respect to either…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Romer v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-CarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Bay General Industries, Inc. v. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- Hart v. Vermont Investment Ltd. PartnershipDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- MacLeod v. Georgetown University Medical CenterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nunn Law Office v. RosenthalIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009
- Winmar, Inc. v. Al Jazeera InternationalDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Qatar National Bank v. Winmar, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010