Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Queen v. Postell, 513 A.2d 812 (1986)

Citation
Queen v. Postell, 513 A.2d 812 (1986)
Parent Document
Queen v. Postell, 513 A.2d 812 (1986)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1986-08-05

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text

450 chars
Appellant also argues that it was error for the trial court to deny the motion for judgment n.o.v., asserting that on the evidence no reasonable juror could have concluded that Queen’s summary of her telephone communications with Rowell was incorrect, as her testimony was corroborated by her secretary and by office records. It is of course true that plaintiffs’ contention that a settlement occurred pretrial rests entirely on Rowell’s testimony. 7