Brown v. District of Columbia

304 A.2d 292, 1973 D.C. App. LEXIS 277
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 1973
Docket6834
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 304 A.2d 292 (Brown v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. District of Columbia, 304 A.2d 292, 1973 D.C. App. LEXIS 277 (D.C. 1973).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On June 30, 1972, appellant complained against the District of Columbia (appellee) in the Civil Division of the Superior Court demanding damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault allegedly occurring on December 14, 1971.

On motion of appellee the complaint was dismissed because appellant “failed to comply with the mandatory notice provisions of D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 12-309.” 1

While conceding that the suit was filed more than six months after the acts complained of, appellant contends that the police report (P.D. 251) of his arrest on December 14, 1971, for unlawful entry and for carrying a dangerous weapon was sufficient notice of his claim to satisfy the requirements of the statute. We do not agree.

*293 D.C.Code 1972 Supp., § 12-309 contemplates that the “report in writing by the Metropolitan Police Department, in regular course of duty,” shall notify the District of Columbia of an injury to person or damage to property. The police report (P.D. 251) made in this case was a “Report of Crime Against Person or Property”, mandated by D.C.Code 1967, § 4-134a.

In the opinion of this court that report setting forth, as it does, the circumstances surrounding appellant’s arrest for unlawful entry and carrying a dangerous weapon was not notice of an injury to person or damage to property for the purposes of D.C. Code 1972 Supp., § 12-309.

Affirmed.

1

. An action may not be maintained against the District of Columbia for un-liquidated damages to person or property unless, within six months after the injury or damage was sustained, the claimant, his agent, or attorney has given notice in writing to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia of the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances of the injury or damage. A report in writing by the Metropolitan Police Department, in regular course of duty, is a sufficient notice under this section.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cunningham v. District of Columbia
584 A.2d 573 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
Allen v. District of Columbia
533 A.2d 1259 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1987)
Powell v. District of Columbia
645 F. Supp. 66 (District of Columbia, 1986)
James v. District of Columbia
610 F. Supp. 1027 (District of Columbia, 1985)
Washington v. District of Columbia
429 A.2d 1362 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1981)
Breen v. District of Columbia
400 A.2d 1058 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979)
Braxton v. National Capital Housing Authority
396 A.2d 215 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1978)
Shehyn v. District of Columbia
392 A.2d 1008 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1978)
Pitts v. District of Columbia
391 A.2d 803 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1978)
Jenkins v. District of Columbia
379 A.2d 1177 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)
Rieser v. District of Columbia
563 F.2d 462 (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
Dellums v. Powell
566 F.2d 216 (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
Knable v. Wilson
570 F.2d 957 (D.C. Circuit, 1977)
Miller v. Spencer
330 A.2d 250 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
304 A.2d 292, 1973 D.C. App. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1973.