Jenkins v. Smith

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Jenkins v. Smith

499 A.2d 128, 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 517

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1985

Docket83-679

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 499 A.2d 128 (Jenkins v. Smith) 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

Jenkins v. Smith, 499 A.2d 128, 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 517 (D.C. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Judges Nebeker, Mack, Ferren, Belson and Steadman join in Part I. Chief Judge Pryor and Judges Newman, Terry and Rogers dissent as to Part I. The court is unanimous as to Part II.

I

This case was argued before the division on January 4, 1984. Subsequently, this court sua sponte ordered the case reheard en. banc and requested counsel, in supplemental memoranda and at oral argument, to address the question whether the holding in Frost v. Peoples Drug Store, 327 A.2d 810 (D.C.1974), should be overruled. That holding permits an appeal to be taken from a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conve-niens. Neither party urges that we overrule Frost. After rehearing the case en banc on September 11, 1985, a majority of the court reaffirms the holding in that case.

II

On the question whether the trial court improperly denied the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, we find *129 no legal impropriety. The order from which this appeal is taken is therefore affirmed.

The opinion of the court as to Part II and other opinions will be issued at a later date. In the meantime, the Superior Court may proceed with its disposition of this case,

g0 ordered

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

PER CURIAM:

Judges Nebeker, Mack, Ferren, Belson and Steadman join in Part I. Chief Judge Pryor and Judges Newman, Terry and Rogers dissent as to Part I. The court is unanimous as to Part II.

I

This case was argued before the division on January 4, 1984. Subsequently, this court sua sponte ordered the case reheard en. banc and requested counsel, in supplemental memoranda and at oral argument, to address the question whether the holding in Frost v. Peoples Drug Store, 327 A.2d 810 (D.C.1974), should be overruled. That holding permits an appeal to be taken from a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conve-niens. Neither party urges that we overrule Frost. After rehearing the case en banc on September 11, 1985, a majority of the court reaffirms the holding in that case.

II

On the question whether the trial court improperly denied the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, we find *129 no legal impropriety. The order from which this appeal is taken is therefore affirmed.

The opinion of the court as to Part II and other opinions will be issued at a later date. In the meantime, the Superior Court may proceed with its disposition of this case,

g0 ordered

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 A.2d 128, 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-smith-dc-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack