Jasper Porter v. J. Fairfax Conrad, 196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1952). · Go Syfert
Search
Jasper Porter v. J. Fairfax Conrad, 196 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1952). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dist. of Columbia v. Abramson, 148 A.2d 578 (D.C. 1959)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jasper Porter
v.
J. Fairfax Conrad
10989_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 17, 1952.
Published opinion
196 F.2d 240
1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2456
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

196 F.2d 240

Jasper PORTER, Appellant,
v.
J. Fairfax CONRAD, Appellee.

No. 10989.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued January 4, 1952.

Decided April 17, 1952.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Earl H. Davis, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D. C., with whom H. Mason Welch, John R. Daily and J. Harry Welch, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~240–241]1

This appeal was allowed to review the application by the Municipal Court of Appeals of our decisions in Rosenberg v. Murray,[1] and Hiscox v. Jackson[2] in determining the limited circumstances under which the presumption of consent under the District of Columbia Owners' Financial Responsibility Act, D.C.Code § 40-403 (1940), may be overcome as a matter of law. Upon our review of this case, we conclude that the Municipal Court of Appeals correctly stated and applied the governing principles laid down by this court.

2

We therefore adopt the opinion of the Municipal Court of Appeals, reported in 1951, 79 A.2d 777, in affirming its judgment herein.

3

Affirmed.

Notes: