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/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007)
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
- Section 15-703
Full Text
427 charsIn her response, Landise acknowledges that the trial court’s order of April 26, 2004, was not a final order. Nonetheless, she claims that this court has jurisdiction because of two exceptions to the usual requirement that review be of a final order.5 She argues first that the order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and second that it has the practical effect of an injunction. We disagree on both claims. II.