Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)

Citation: Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
Parent Document: Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2007-05-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5143156/landise-v-mauro/ ↗

Full Text

916 chars

On November 30, 2005, Mauro filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. He argued that the trial court’s order directing Landise to post additional security is not an appealable order. Landise filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response; however, this court erroneously interpreted that motion as a response to Mauro’s motion. On December 15, 2005, a motions division of this court made a preliminary finding that the order was appealable pursuant to McQueen v. Lustine Realty Co., 547 A.2d 172, 174 (D.C.1988) (en banc), which held that a protective order in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Superior Court is appealable as an injunction pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-721(a)(2)(A) (1981), because protective orders have the “practical effect” of an injunction. However, on January 26, 2007, after oral argument, we directed Landise to file a response to Mauro’s motion to dismiss.

Other Sections in This Document (27)

Full Text