Legal Opinion
B.F. Saul Co. v. Tiefenbacher
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 22, 2011No. 11-CV-565PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Senior Judge:
This matter is before a motions division on the appeal of B.F. Saul Co. (BFSC), agent for the landlord, from an order of the Superior Court denying its motion to release funds, pendente lite, paid into the registry of the trial court by appellees, Kenneth A. Mazzer and Wendy Tiefenbacher (tenants). BFSC asserts that the trial court’s order is interlocutorily appeal-able pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-721(a)(2) (2011 Supp.), and because it has the “practical effect” of an injunction pursuant to McQueen v. Lustine Realty Co., 547 A.2d 172, 176 (D.C.1988) (en banc). We conclude…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. BodingerSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Richard Dorfmann, T/a Tenth Street Limited Partnership v. Russell B. BoozerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- B.F. Saul Co. v. TiefenbacherDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- Brown v. PearsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2020