Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text

429 chars
. At trial, Ms. Bridges was focused on introducing the portion of the Love affidavit that related to the repair of the “pin hole leak.” Ms. Bridges appears to have assumed that if that portion of the affidavit were to be admitted, then the rest of the affidavit would properly be admissible under the rule of completeness. See generally, e.g., Cox v. United States, 898 A.2d 376, 381 (D.C.2006) (discussing rule of completeness).