Porter v. Conrad

196 F.2d 240
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 17, 1952·No. Ne. 10989·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was allowed to review the application by the Municipal Court of Appeals of our decisions in Rosenberg v. Murray,1 and Hiscox v. Jackson2 in determining the limited circumstances under which t-he presumption of consent under the District of Columbia Owners’ Financial Responsibility Act, D.C.Code § 40-403 (1940), may be overcome as a matter of law. Upon our review of this case, we conclude that the Municipal Court of Appeals correctly stated and applied the governing principles laid down by this court.

We therefore adopt the opinion of the Municipal Court of Appeals, reported in 1951, 79 A.2d 777, in affirming its judgment herein.

Affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Porter v. Conrad, 196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

196 F.2d 240 (Porter v. Conrad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Emory M. Jones, Sr. v. John Halun
296 F.2d 597 (D.C. Circuit, 1962)
Jasper Porter v. J. Fairfax Conrad
196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)