In re N.R.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re N.R.

41 A.3d 1219, 2012 WL 683076, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 72

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 29, 2012

DocketNos. 11-FS-1161, 11-FS-1162, 11-FS-1163, 11-FS-1164, 11-FS-1165, 11-FS-1166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.3d 1219 (In re N.R.) 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

In re N.R., 41 A.3d 1219, 2012 WL 683076, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 72 (D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In In re A.O.T., 10 A.3d 160 (D.C.2010), a division of this court issued an opinion in which it “vacated the judgment [terminating appellant’s parental rights and granting A.O.T.’s petition to adopt appellant’s children] and remand[ed] the cases for a new trial before an associate judge of the Family Court.” Id. at 167. This court’s mandate issued on March 10, 2011. Appellant moved to enforce the mandate on July 20, 2011; no opposition was filed. On August 9, 2011, the presiding judge of the Family Court denied the motion on the ground that it was moot in light of an intervening rule change by the Superior Court. This appeal followed.

Our unambiguous mandate was and continues to be binding on the Family Court. See Lenkin Co. Mgmt., Inc. v. D.C. Rental Hous. Comm’n, 677 A.2d 46 (D.C.1996). In the interest of providing appellant with a new trial as expeditiously as possible and in the interest of enforcing the mandate of the court previously issued in this case, it is

ORDERED that a new trial before an associate judge of the Family Court be scheduled forthwith. An opinion will follow.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In In re A.O.T., 10 A.3d 160 (D.C.2010), a division of this court issued an opinion in which it “vacated the judgment [terminating appellant’s parental rights and granting A.O.T.’s petition to adopt appellant’s children] and remand[ed] the cases for a new trial before an associate judge of the Family Court.” Id. at 167. This court’s mandate issued on March 10, 2011. Appellant moved to enforce the mandate on July 20, 2011; no opposition was filed. On August 9, 2011, the presiding judge of the Family Court denied the motion on the ground that it was moot in light of an intervening rule change by the Superior Court. This appeal followed.

Our unambiguous mandate was and continues to be binding on the Family Court. See Lenkin Co. Mgmt., Inc. v. D.C. Rental Hous. Comm’n, 677 A.2d 46 (D.C.1996). In the interest of providing appellant with a new trial as expeditiously as possible and in the interest of enforcing the mandate of the court previously issued in this case, it is

ORDERED that a new trial before an associate judge of the Family Court be scheduled forthwith. An opinion will follow.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.3d 1219, 2012 WL 683076, 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nr-dc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack