Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Barimany v. Urban Pace LLC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided August 1, 2013No. 12-CV-982Published

1ConcurrenceReid, Senior Judge

Judge Easterly concludes that: “We need not determine whether the trial court properly applied Virginia law to all aspects of Ms. Barimany and Mr. Dove’s lawsuit in light of our determination that (1) the trial court properly applied the Virginia Condominium Act as it does not conflict with District of Columbia law, and (2) that statute shielded Urban Pace from liability.” I fully agree that the Virginia Condominium Act bars appellants’ action against Urban Pace LLC. I write separately to express my view that under our traditional choice of law approach, Virginia law governs this action.

First,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. District of Columbia v. ColemanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Kemp v. MillerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1936
  4. Estrada v. Potomac Electric Power Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Chamberlain Protective Services, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982

4 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