Foster v. Canan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Foster v. Canan

661 A.2d 636, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 144, 1995 WL 422213

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 1995

Docket94-SP-1432

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 661 A.2d 636 (Foster v. Canan) 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

Foster v. Canan, 661 A.2d 636, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 144, 1995 WL 422213 (D.C. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The division is of the opinion that the issue presented by the petition has been resolved against petitioner by this court’s combined decisions in Browner v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1107 (D.C.1988); Olevsky v. District of Columbia, 548 A.2d 78 (D.C.1988); In re Thompson, 454 A.2d 1324 (D.C.1982); and Scott v. District of Columbia, 122 A.2d 579 (D.C.1956). Even if that were not the case, the division is unable to conclude, in light of these decisions, that the right to a petition for a writ of mandamus is “ ‘clear and indisputable’ ” in this case. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1143-44, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (quoting Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is removed from the oral argument calendar for Monday, June 19, 1995. It is

FURTHER ORDERED by the division, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall poll the full court regarding whether this case shall be heard by the court en banc.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The division is of the opinion that the issue presented by the petition has been resolved against petitioner by this court’s combined decisions in Browner v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1107 (D.C.1988); Olevsky v. District of Columbia, 548 A.2d 78 (D.C.1988); In re Thompson, 454 A.2d 1324 (D.C.1982); and Scott v. District of Columbia, 122 A.2d 579 (D.C.1956). Even if that were not the case, the division is unable to conclude, in light of these decisions, that the right to a petition for a writ of mandamus is “ ‘clear and indisputable’ ” in this case. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1143-44, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (quoting Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is removed from the oral argument calendar for Monday, June 19, 1995. It is

FURTHER ORDERED by the division, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall poll the full court regarding whether this case shall be heard by the court en banc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 A.2d 636, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 144, 1995 WL 422213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-canan-dc-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack