Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)

Citation
Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Parent Document
Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1997-09-23

Other Sections in This Document (617)

Full Text

651 chars
Those of my colleagues who differ with the views expressed in this opinion do not necessarily disagree with the apparent near-consensus of the commentators regarding the shortcomings of Wood's Rule. Rather, they pose the fundamental question: who decides? Their basic answer to that question is: not the court! Judge Steadman would leave any revision of the at-will doctrine entirely to the legislature. Judge Terry contemplates a judicial role, but a markedly limited one. The judges favoring affirmance perceive judicial modifications of the rule as unseemly activism. For the reasons stated below, I must respectfully disagree with this assessment.