Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1965–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kemp Smith Co.green2 sentences1999See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kemp Smith Co., 208 A.2d 737, 738-39 (D.C.1965) (explicitly adopting the third party beneficiary rule followed by the majority of jurisdictions). 5 . 1968Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kemp Smith Co., D.C.App., 208 A.2d 737 (1965). 6 . | 1 | 2 |
Marranzano v. Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, D.C.green2 sentences1965C., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 196 , 184 F.2d 349, 350 (1950), there was a recognition that there are exceptions “to the general rule that a stranger to a contract may not sue to enforce its terms or to recover damages for a violation thereof”; and there are other cases indicating that the third party beneficiary rule would be applied in a proper case. 1965C., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 196 , 184 F.2d 349, 350 (1950), there was a recognition that there are exceptions “to the general rule that a stranger to a contract may not sue to enforce its terms or to recover damages for a violation thereof”; and there are other cases indicating that the third party beneficiary rule would be applied in a proper case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Glass v. United States
green
2 sentences2018The Beckers also argue that section 13 (b) of the SRA, which states that the agreement "sets forth all of the ... understandings ... among the parties," "is fatal to the Silberbergs' third-party beneficiary claim." The Beckers further point out that the payout to Joanne, Robin, and Adam totaling $680,000 for all their shares would have left the Silberbergs with a reduced ability to receive distributions from Shenandoah ("due to the entity taking out a $680,000.00 loan"), all the while leaving the Silberbergs with no more shares than they had before and with a benefit that would "necessarily ri 2018Cir. 2001), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that "in order to make a shareholder a third party beneficiary, the contract must express the intent of the promissor to benefit the shareholder personally, independently of his or her status as shareholder." Id. at 1353-54 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
National Loan Investors Ltd. Partnership v. Heritage Square Associates
green
1 sentence2004In the same case the CAB also said that "any action based on negligence lies not before the Board but in the Superior Court.” Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Guinn Company, Inc. v. Olga M. Mazza
neutral
2 sentences1965Hall v. Gardiner, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 126 F.2d 227 (1942); Schwartz v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 64 A.2d 298 (1949). 2 In Guinn Company v. Mazza, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 319 , 296 F.2d 441 (1961), the rule was recognized, but that case was controlled by the law of New York. 1965Hall v. Gardiner, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 126 F.2d 227 (1942); Schwartz v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 64 A.2d 298 (1949). 2 In Guinn Company v. Mazza, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 319 , 296 F.2d 441 (1961), the rule was recognized, but that case was controlled by the law of New York. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Hall v. Gardiner
neutral
2 sentences1965Hall v. Gardiner, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 126 F.2d 227 (1942); Schwartz v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 64 A.2d 298 (1949). 2 In Guinn Company v. Mazza, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 319 , 296 F.2d 441 (1961), the rule was recognized, but that case was controlled by the law of New York. 1965Hall v. Gardiner, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 126 F.2d 227 (1942); Schwartz v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 64 A.2d 298 (1949). 2 In Guinn Company v. Mazza, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 319 , 296 F.2d 441 (1961), the rule was recognized, but that case was controlled by the law of New York. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Schwartz v. Brown
green
1 sentence1965Hall v. Gardiner, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 126 F.2d 227 (1942); Schwartz v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 64 A.2d 298 (1949). 2 In Guinn Company v. Mazza, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 319 , 296 F.2d 441 (1961), the rule was recognized, but that case was controlled by the law of New York. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.