Legal Opinion
Fortuin v. Milhorat
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided April 14, 1988No. Civ. A. 87-2103 JHPPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOHN H. PRATT, District Judge.
In this action plaintiff, Thomas Fortuin, alleges that he entered into a binding agreement with defendant, Thomas Milho-rat, to purchase the latter’s house in the Georgetown section of the District of Columbia. Plaintiff concedes that the parties did not execute a written contract. Instead, plaintiff weaves his contract claim out of various agreements and oral representations which, in his opinion, amounted to an oral commitment to enter into a written agreement enforceable under the law of the District of Columbia. 1 Plaintiff initially filed…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Strawbridge v. CurtissSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- City of Indianapolis v. Chase National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Coley v. Dragon Ltd.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1990
- Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Marra v. Burgdorf Realtors, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
- Wach v. Byrne, Goldenberg & Hamilton, PllcDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Jackson v. Strayer CollegeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.