Section 15-703
- Citation
- Section 15-703
- 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
467 charsNext, Landise claims that this court has jurisdiction because the order has the “practical effect” of an injunction, bringing the order within D.C.Code § 11-721(a)(2)(A) (2001), which gives this court jurisdiction over interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” We conclude that security orders pursuant to D.C.Code § 15-703(b) are not subject to interlocutory appeal as injunctions.