Case Notes

Court of Appeals Holds that Denial of Special Motion to Quash Under Anti-SLAPP Act Is Immediately Appealable

Jun 28th, 2014 | By Douglas C. Melcher

On May 29, 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Doe No. 1 v. Burke, No. 13-CV-83, slip op. (D.C. May 29, 2014), in which it considered, inter alia, whether the denial of a special motion to dismiss under the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP Act is immediately appealable. Id. at 2. By way
[continue reading...]



Court of Appeals Holds that Plaintiff Failed to Establish a Claim Based on Allegedly False Report Casting Doubt on His Eligibility for Disability Benefits

Jun 27th, 2014 | By Douglas C. Melcher

On April 17, 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Grimes v. District of Columbia, No. 12-CV-218, slip op. (D.C. Apr. 17, 2014), in which it considered whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for (1) retaliation under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), (2) intentional infliction of emotional
[continue reading...]



Court of Appeals Holds that Trial Court Erred in Dismissing Claims Based on Parol-Evidence Rule and Statute of Frauds

Jun 26th, 2014 | By Douglas C. Melcher

On March 13, 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Stancil v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Association, No. 12-CV-1382, slip op. (D.C. Mar. 13, 2014), in which it considered whether the trial court erred in dismissing common law claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful foreclosure, and breach of contract. Id. at 1-3. The facts
[continue reading...]



Court of Appeals Holds that No-Fault Act Did Not Preclude Motor Vehicle Insurer From Enforcing Subrogation Clause

Apr 4th, 2014 | By Douglas C. Melcher

On February 27, 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Hubb v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 12-CV-1952, slip op. (D.C. Feb. 27, 2014), in which it held that the District of Columbia’s Compulsory / No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (the “No-Fault Act”) did not preclude a motor vehicle insurer from enforcing a
[continue reading...]