Rosenblum v. Cherner

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Rosenblum v. Cherner

219 A.2d 491, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 177

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1966

Docket3847

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 A.2d 491 (Rosenblum v. Cherner) 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

Rosenblum v. Cherner, 219 A.2d 491, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 177 (D.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, now appellee, rescinding a contract for breach of warranty.

The arguments in support of this appeal deal generally with issues of fact. The record shows that appellant, a dentist, contracted to make two sets of dentures for appellee and was paid $550. Appellee testified, and her testimony was corroborated in the main by appellant, that when she placed the order appellant assured her that he would “please her to her personal satisfaction”; that the dentures proved most unsatisfactory; that after returning for adjustments many times, she tendered the return of the dentures; and that appellant refused to accept them and ordered her from his office. On the basis of the evidence the court found for appellee.

Our examination of the transcript shows that there was ample proof to support the trial court’s finding. We have said time and again that we have no right or power to retry factual issues and therefore the judgment must be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, now appellee, rescinding a contract for breach of warranty.

The arguments in support of this appeal deal generally with issues of fact. The record shows that appellant, a dentist, contracted to make two sets of dentures for appellee and was paid $550. Appellee testified, and her testimony was corroborated in the main by appellant, that when she placed the order appellant assured her that he would “please her to her personal satisfaction”; that the dentures proved most unsatisfactory; that after returning for adjustments many times, she tendered the return of the dentures; and that appellant refused to accept them and ordered her from his office. On the basis of the evidence the court found for appellee.

Our examination of the transcript shows that there was ample proof to support the trial court’s finding. We have said time and again that we have no right or power to retry factual issues and therefore the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.2d 491, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenblum-v-cherner-dc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack