Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bedell v. Inver Housing, Inc., 506 A.2d 202 (1986)

Citation
Bedell v. Inver Housing, Inc., 506 A.2d 202 (1986)
Parent Document
Bedell v. Inver Housing, Inc., 506 A.2d 202 (1986)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1986-03-18

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text

873 chars
Following entry of judgment in this case, appellant moved, under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59, for a new trial. In support of the motion, appellant first asserted that due to court imposed time constraints, and a “false” impression created by the trial judge, he had mistakenly thought that “there was no need to give extensive testimony” concerning damage to the works of art in the gallery. Appellant argued that because the trial judge found his proffer of damages inadequate, and on this basis limited his recovery, “[i]n the interest of justice, it is necessary that the judgment be opened in order to allow [appellant] to present documentary evidence to substantiate the full value of the merchandise lost_” Second, appellant requested that the judgment be opened so that he could submit proof, in the form of a canceled check, that he had indeed paid rent for December 1981. 2