Briefs

Colbert v. Union Carbide Corporation, 09-CV-1527(D.C. App.)

Brief for Appellant

DiSalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Dist. of Columbia, 974 A.2d 868 (D.C. 2009)

Brief for Appellees

Cormier v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Auth., 959 A.2d 658 (D.C. 2008)

Brief for Appellant

Debnam v. Crane Co., 976 A.2d 193 (D.C. 2009)

Brief for Appellant

Debnam v. Crane Co., 976 A.2d 193 (D.C. 2009)

Reply Brief

Easterling v. American Optical Corp., 207 W.Va. 123, 529 S.E.2d 588 (2000)

Brief for Appellant

Easterling v. American Optical Corp., 207 W.Va. 123, 529 S.E.2d 588 (2000)

Reply Brief

Euclid Street, LLC v. D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, 09-CV-000894 (D.C. App.)

Brief for Appellant

Euclid Street, LLC v. D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, 09-CV-000894 (D.C. App.)

Reply Brief

Washington Hospital Center v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 859 A.2d 1058 (D.C. 2004)

Brief for Intervener

Weakley v. Burnham Corp., 871 A.2d 1167 (D.C. 2005)

Brief for Appellant

Weakley v. Burnham Corp., 871 A.2d 1167 (D.C. 2005)

Reply Brief

Cases

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 826 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

Celotex is one of the 1986 trilogy of summary judgment cases decided by the Supreme Court. It is one of the most cited cases in modern legal history.

Colbert v. Union Carbide Corporation, 09-CV-1527(D.C. App.)

This as a pending appeal of the award of summary judgment in a product liability case.

DiSalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Dist. of Columbia, 974 A.2d 868 (D.C. 2009)

This case involved the appellate representation of a successful plaintiff in a failure to provide adequate security premise liability case.

Cormier v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Auth., 959 A.2d 658 (D.C. 2008)

This appeal resulted in the reversal of summary judgment in a commercial action and the holding that declarations are “affidavits” for purposes of summary judgment proceedings.

Debnam v. Crane Co., 976 A.2d 193 (D.C. 2009)

This appeal obtained the reversal of a successor liability ruling in a products case.

Easterling v. American Optical Corp., 207 W.Va. 123, 529 S.E.2d 588 (2000)

This case was decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court and clarified the manner in which the state’s long-arm statutes are to be applied in product liability actions.

Euclid Street, LLC v. D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, 09-CV-000894 (D.C. App.)

This pending appeal challenges the grant of summary judgment in a regulatory action.

First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. United States Gypsum Co., 882 F.2d 862 (4th Cir. 1989)

This appeal decided whether CERCLA’s statute of limitations applies to asbestos property damage claims.

Hofherr v. Dart Industries, Inc., 853 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1988)

This appeal challenged the entry of a directed verdict in a DES action.

Housing Auth. of Baltimore City v. Hyman, No. 02660, Sept. Term 2008 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.)

This case involved defending the verdict of a successful plaintiff in a mold exposure premises liability claim.

Washington Hospital Center v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 859 A.2d 1058 (D.C. 2004)

This landmark case established the discovery rule in District of Columbia worker’s compensation cases.

Waybright v. Frederick County Md. Dept. of Fire & Rescue Services, 528 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) cert denied 129 S.Ct. 725 (2008)

This appeal resulted in the partial reversal of the grant of summary judgment in a civil rights action.

Weakley v. Burnham Corp., 871 A.2d 1167 (D.C. 2005)

This landmark case established the summary judgment standard for District of Columbia asbestos personal injury cases.

Wesley Theological Seminary v. United States Gypsum Co., 876 F.2d 119 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1003 (1990)

This appeal established the constitutionality of the retroactive application of a newly enacted statute of limitation.