Wells v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Wells v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

473 A.2d 388, 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 355

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 13, 1984·No. No. 83-801·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration on the motion of respondents to dismiss and the opposition of petitioner thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied. A motion to dismiss is not the proper proce[389]*389dural mechanism by which to seek affirmance on the merits. The appropriate motion to file in such a case is a motion for summary affirmance. Such a motion, however, must meet the strict requirements set forth in United States v. Allen, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 85, 408 F.2d 1287, 1288 (1969), adopted by this court in In re DeJ., 310 A.2d 834 (D.C.1973), and Oliver T. Carr Management, Inc. v. National Delicatessen, Inc., 397 A.2d 914 (D.C.1979).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration on the motion of respondents to dismiss and the opposition of petitioner thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied. A motion to dismiss is not the proper proce[389]*389dural mechanism by which to seek affirmance on the merits. The appropriate motion to file in such a case is a motion for summary affirmance. Such a motion, however, must meet the strict requirements set forth in United States v. Allen, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 85, 408 F.2d 1287, 1288 (1969), adopted by this court in In re DeJ., 310 A.2d 834 (D.C.1973), and Oliver T. Carr Management, Inc. v. National Delicatessen, Inc., 397 A.2d 914 (D.C.1979).

Wells v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 473 A.2d 388, 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 355 (D.C. 1984).

Pincite

473 A.2d 388 (Wells v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related