Section 11-735

Citation: Section 11-735
Parent Document: Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1978-06-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2073911/mendes-v-johnson/ ↗

Full Text

1,081 chars

With these means properly available for distinguishing Snitman, it is incredible to me that a majority of any division of this court would feel frustrated in their attempts to resolve this case consistent with the principles of M.A.P. v. Ryan, D.C.App., 285 A.2d 310 (1977). See footnote * of the majority opinion. It is even more incredible that this court would then decide, en banc, that the only rationale available for decision is one requiring an en banc decision. En banc decision is unwarranted unless “necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of [court] decisions” or “the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.” D.C.App.R. 40(c). Since Snitman is easily and properly distinguishable from the instant case on a number of grounds, the former justification for en banc decision does not exist. I fear, therefore, that today’s decision means that a majority of this court feel free to decide “question[s] of exceptional importance” without the strictest necessity for such decision — a freedom I attribute to our legislative bodies but not to this court.

Other Sections in This Document (216)

Full Text