JESSYE M. BARNARD, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN E. SCHNEIDER AND ELIZABETH L. SCHNEIDER AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court's order certifying a case to the Municipal Court is a final and appealable order.
Appellant sued for personal injuries and $50,000 in damages. The District Judge certified the case to the Municipal Court, believing the action would …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued in the District Court for $50,000 on account of personal injuries sustained as a result of alleged negligence of appellees. Acting under Title 11, Section 756 of the District of Columbia Code,1 the District Judge certified the case to the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia for trial, on the ground that it appeared to him that the action would not justify a judgment in excess of $3,000.2 Under this statute the appellant may be awarded in the Municipal Court such damages, within the $50,000 claimed, as the jury determines.
Appellees urge that the order certifying the case to the Municipal Court is not a final and appealable order, and also that the District Court’s action was a proper exercise of discretion. A majority of the court think the order was final and appealable, since trial by the District Court was a claimed right and was not an ingredient of the cause of action. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528; Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana, 339 U.S. 684, 70 S.Ct. 861, 94 L.Ed. 1206; United States v. Cefaratti, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 300, 202 F. 2d 13, 15. We all agree that there was no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
. D.C.Code 1951, § 11-756 (Supp. Y).
. Inadvertently tlie District Court order recited “$1000”, but the judge intended the figure to be $3000. Neither party raised an issue concerning this typographical error,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Peerless Ins. Co., 255 F.2d 534 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
-
Kent v. Reid, 316 F.2d 331 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
-
Gray v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 277 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949)
- Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana del Caribe, 339 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1950)
- United States v. Cefaratti, 202 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1952)