University motion in District of Columbia

2021The court denied this request without prejudice, finding that the Faculty Association had “provided insufficient grounds for a breach of contract claim at this juncture.” Faculty Association has not raised this ruling on appeal, and we do not address it. 10 Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986) (“‘[W]hether or not [a party] was bound to arbitrate, as well as what issues it must arbitrate, is a matter to be determined by the Court on the basis of the contract entered into by the parties.’” (quoting John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 547 (1964))).

2021Unit Owners Ass’n, Inc., 85 A.3d 824, 827 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Ashland, Inc., 967 A.2d 166, 173 (D.C. 2009)); see also AT & T Techs., 5 The Faculty Association also requested that, in the event the court granted the University’s motion and found the matter not arbitrable, the court convert the Faculty Association’s motion into a complaint for breach of contract.

2021The court denied this request without prejudice, finding that the Faculty Association had “provided insufficient grounds for a breach of contract claim at this juncture.” Faculty Association has not raised this ruling on appeal, and we do not address it. 10 Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986) (“‘[W]hether or not [a party] was bound to arbitrate, as well as what issues it must arbitrate, is a matter to be determined by the Court on the basis of the contract entered into by the parties.’” (quoting John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 547 (1964))).

2021Unit Owners Ass’n, Inc., 85 A.3d 824, 827 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Ashland, Inc., 967 A.2d 166, 173 (D.C. 2009)); see also AT & T Techs., 5 The Faculty Association also requested that, in the event the court granted the University’s motion and found the matter not arbitrable, the court convert the Faculty Association’s motion into a complaint for breach of contract.

2008See also Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 132-33 , 65 S.Ct. 165 , 89 L.Ed. 118 (1944), where the Supreme Court stated: It is timely again to remind counsel that words of our opinions are to be read in the light of the facts of the order under discussion.

2008See also Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 132-33 , 65 S.Ct. 165 , 89 L.Ed. 118 (1944), where the Supreme Court stated: It is timely again to remind counsel that words of our opinions are to be read in the light of the facts of the order under discussion.

2008The same may fairly be said here. [5] The court denied the University's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff's claims of discrimination based on color and on retaliation. [6] In Khiem v. United States, 612 A.2d 160, 164 (D.C.1992), we explained: In Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910 (D.C.1959), the court pointed out that: It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of the law only by comparing the facts from which they arise with those facts to which they supposedly apply. 155 A.2d at 913 .

2008In Khiem v. United States, 612 A.2d 160, 164 (D.C.1992), we explained: In Kraft v. Kraft, 155 A.2d 910 (D.C.1959), the court pointed out that: It is well to remember that significance is given to broad and general statements of the law only by comparing the facts from which they arise with those facts to which they supposedly apply. 155 A.2d at 913 .

2007See supra, 837 A.2d at 58 . [8] The CAG also contends that BZA's failure to submit a proposed order, reflecting the elimination of several provisions, to the parties before issuing their decision and not reopening the record for comment violated D.C.Code § 2-509(d).

2005A. Law of the Case Doctrine Argument Jung argues that the trial judge erred in making an evidentiary ruling excluding the evidence during trial because the pre-trial judge had made a contrary ruling in denying the University’s motion in limine seeking to exclude this evidence. “ ‘The law of the case doctrine prevents relitigation of the same issue in the same case by courts of coordinate jurisdiction.’ ” Johnson v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., 723 A.2d 852, 857 (D.C.1999) (quoting Johnson v. Fairfax Vill.

2005Condo., IV Unit Owners Ass’n, 641 A.2d 495, 503 (D.C.1994)) (other citation omitted).

1992The grant or denial of a motion to amend is committed to trial court discretion, e.g., Plummer v. Johnson, 35 A.2d 647, 648 (D.C.1944), and this court’s role is to “examine[ ] the record and the trial court’s determination for those indicia of rationality and fairness that will assure it that the trial court’s action was proper.” Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 362 (D.C.1979).

1992The trial court “exercis[ed] its judgment in a rational and informed manner,” and its “action was within the range of permissible alternatives.” Johnson, 398 A.2d at 365 .

1992In general, to “hold a party liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel there must be a promise which reasonably leads the promisee to rely on it to his [or her] detriment, with injustice otherwise not being avoidable.” Bender v. Design Store Corp., 404 A.2d 194, 196 (D.C.1979) (quotations and cites omitted); accord Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011, 1034 (D.C.1990).

1992In general, to “hold a party liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel there must be a promise which reasonably leads the promisee to rely on it to his [or her] detriment, with injustice otherwise not being avoidable.” Bender v. Design Store Corp., 404 A.2d 194, 196 (D.C.1979) (quotations and cites omitted); accord Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011, 1034 (D.C.1990).

1992See Gordon, 462 A.2d at 13 (when exercising discretion in ruling on motion to amend, trial court may consider effect on “orderly administration of justice”).

1992The grant or denial of a motion to amend is committed to trial court discretion, e.g., Plummer v. Johnson, 35 A.2d 647, 648 (D.C.1944), and this court’s role is to “examine[ ] the record and the trial court’s determination for those indicia of rationality and fairness that will assure it that the trial court’s action was proper.” Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 362 (D.C.1979).