Jessye M. Barnard v. John E. Schneider and Elizabeth L. Schneider and District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Jessye M. Barnard v. John E. Schneider and Elizabeth L. Schneider and District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation

243 F.2d 258, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2929

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1957

Docket05-5068

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 258 (Jessye M. Barnard v. John E. Schneider and Elizabeth L. Schneider and District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jessye M. Barnard v. John E. Schneider and Elizabeth L. Schneider and District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation, 243 F.2d 258, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2929 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *259 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.

1

. D.C.Code 1951, § 11-756 (Supp. Y).

2

. 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,

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

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 *259 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.

1

. D.C.Code 1951, § 11-756 (Supp. Y).

2

. 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,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 258, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 152, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessye-m-barnard-v-john-e-schneider-and-elizabeth-l-schneider-and-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack