Legal Opinion
Starling v. Jephunneh Lawrence & Associates
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 19, 1985No. 84-723PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Associate Judge:
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for relief under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b) from the grant of appellee’s motion for summary judgment as unopposed, and the dismissal of appellants’ counterclaim. 1 We reverse and remand for a hearing on appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion.
I
Appellee sued to collect attorney's fees allegedly due under a contingency fee arrangement for recovering benefits due on appellant-Starling’s husband’s life insurance policy. Appellants denied liability and asserted several defenses in their answer. They also filed a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Klapprott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- United States v. Salvatore Cirami, Salvatore Cirami & Margaret CiramiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- L. P. Steuart, Inc. v. Joseph H. MatthewsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union No. 730District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Robert C. Thorpe v. Bessie P. ThorpeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Clement v. District of Columbia Department of Human ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Feldman v. GogosDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Oxendine v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Chatman v. LawlorDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.