Court Opinion

ID: 9753949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:35:49.698934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:11.963210
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Appellants have been treated most shabbily in this case, and mainly so by the Superior Court. We cannot wash our hands of this by viewing the case through a prism which divides the state into judicial and litigating arms and then say to appellants the District’s counsel was not at fault, take your hollow victory and do not feel too ill of the judicial process for this inexplicable treatment. We compound the insensitivity by ritualistic recitation of rules on burden of proof, domicile, chilling access to the courts, and abuse of discretion. By whatever rubric — equity, abuse of discretion, or our own authority under D.C.Code 1981, § 17-306 — I would direct payment of reasonable attorney’s fees in this case.