Court Opinion

ID: 9754115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:44:25.731879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:48.632556
License: Public Domain

STEADMAN, Senior Judge,
concurring:
Principles of judicial and equitable es-toppel applicable to private parties do not translate readily where the government is a litigant and considerations of protection of the public físc and the public interest are involved. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Gould, 852 A.2d 50, 56-57 (D.C. 2004); Mamo v. District of Columbia, 934 A.2d 876, 386-87 (2007). However, in the particular and special circumstances presented here, coupled with the discretionary nature of permitting new arguments to be made even by the government for the first time on appeal, see, e.g., District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. P’ship, 630 A.2d 174, 182-84 (D.C.1993), I concur in the ultimate conclusion that the District at this point may not challenge the validity of the original 1997 agreement, and I otherwise join the opinion of the court.