Section 23A

Citation: Section 23A
Parent Document: BLT Burger DC, LLC v. Norvin 1301 CT, LLC, 86 A.3d 1139 (2014)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2014-03-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2656505/blt-burger-dc-llc-v-norvin-1301-ct-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,211 chars

39
          Compare W.M. Schlosser Co., Inc. v. Maryland Drywall Co., Inc., 673
A.2d 647, 651 n.9 (D.C. 1996) (argument “implicit” in argument in trial court “can
fairly be held to encompass its argument in this court”) (internal quotation marks
omitted) and Mills v. Cooter, 647 A.2d 1118, 1123 n.12 (D.C. 1994) (although
“counsel made little if any mention” at trial of point emphasized in appeal,
defendant “sufficiently articulated at trial and in his motion for judgment n.o.v.”
his claim that plaintiff‟s evidence was “insufficient to establish a wrongful
departure [from] the standard [of] care, and parties are not limited to the precise
arguments they made below”), with Wolff v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 938 A.2d 691,
694 & n.1 (D.C. 2007) (in reviewing contention in Rule 59 (e) motion not
presented at trial, court perceived “no good reason to make an exception to the
general rule that a party must make a specific objection in the trial court to provide
the judge an opportunity to correct any mistake, and the opposing party a chance to
address and present evidence on the alleged trial court error”) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted).
                                         34

Other Sections in This Document (499)

Full Text