Legal Opinion
Hancock v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 2, 1984No. 83-80PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
Appellant Hancock challenges a trial court ruling awarding him a sum of money under a disability insurance contract. He has been granted leave to proceed with his appeal in forma pauperis. His attorney has filed a motion for leave to withdraw; appellee, Mutual of Omaha, has filed a motion to dismiss; and appellant has filed a pro se request that he receive a transcript of the trial court proceedings at government expense. We grant the motion to withdraw, defer action on the motion to dismiss, and hold that a losing civil litigant who appeals in forma pauperis has the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Coppedge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Bolling v. SharpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Mayer v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Hardy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLPDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
- Crane v. CraneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Atlantic Petroleum Corp. v. Jackson Oil Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Thomas v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Van Durr v. Kator Scott, CharteredDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.