Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Citation
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2013-01-24
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5146099/bridges-v-clark/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (47)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
- Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Full Text
1,203 charsWe also conclude that Ms. Bridges did not “abandon” or “forfeit” the retaliation defense by failing to mention the defense in opening statement or in her trial testimony. Ms. Bridges raised the retaliation defense in her answer, her amended answer, and the joint pretrial statement. Under those circumstances, Ms. Bridges was not required to discuss the defense in her opening statement. Cf. Hentz v. CBI-Fairmac Corp., 445 A.2d 1004, 1005 (D.C. 1982) (reversing trial court’s directed verdict in favor of landlord based on tenant’s failure to mention cause of action in her opening statement; “equitable considerations require that litigants not be denied their day in court merely because they fail to allege in their opening statements that which is sufficiently alleged in their pleadings”); Lampka v. Wilson Line, Inc., 117 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 55-56, 325 F.2d 628, 628-29 (1963) (per curiam) (reversing trial *984court’s directed verdict based on plaintiffs opening statement; “Since the opening statement may be waived entirely, grave doubt arises whether, if a complaint states a cause of action, an opening statement can so dilute the formal pleading as to afford a basis for summary disposition”).