5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giant Food, Inc. v. JACK I. BENDER, ETC.green1 sentence2003Bender & Sons, 399 A.2d 1293, 1302-03 (D.C.1979), that where a plaintiffs claim is for a liquidated sum, the plaintiff will be entitled to prejudgment interest under § 15-108 even if the plaintiffs recovery is reduced at trial by an unliquidated amount that the plaintiff owes the defendant — whether the defendant’s unliquidated claim is founded on a separate transaction or on the same transaction on which the plaintiff filed suit. | 1 | 1 |
Thorpe v. National City Bank of Tampagreen1 sentence1994See also Thorpe v. National City Bank of Tampa, 274 F. 200 (5th Cir.1921). | 1 | 1 |
Larry M. Rosen & Associates, Inc. v. Hurwitzgreen1 sentence1984Rosen & Associates, Inc. v. Hurwitz, 465 A.2d 1114, 1118-1119 (D.C.1983) (after entry of default on an unliquidated claim, the defaulting party is entitled to a hearing on the amount of damages before judgment may be entered). | 1 | 1 |
Ora Lee Bell v. Stephen O'hearne, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, Bureau of Employees Compensation, Fifth Compensation Districtgreen1 sentence1980This is only proper, because when a claimant makes settlement of an unliquidated claim, without the employer’s consent, he had undertaken to fix the amount of recovery in the action which would have inured to the employer’s benefit.” Bell v. O’Hearne, 284 F.2d 777, 780 (4th Cir.1960). | 1 | 1 |
Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. v. E. D. Woodworth, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Employees' Compensation Alexander McClanahangreen2 sentences1980See also Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. v. Woodworth, supra, 142 U.S.App.D.C. at 42 , 439 F.2d at 552 ; Marlin v. Cardillo, 68 App.D.C. 201 , 95 F.2d 112 (1938). 1980See also Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. v. Woodworth, supra, 142 U.S.App.D.C. at 42 , 439 F.2d at 552 ; Marlin v. Cardillo, 68 App.D.C. 201 , 95 F.2d 112 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
Hansen v. Covellgreen2 sentences1979There are three general rules of law concerning the availability of interest where an unliquidated counterclaim or setoff is asserted against a liquidated claim. 8 One of these rules, which Bender urges us to apply here, has been stated as follows: “where the liquidated demand is subject to reduction by virtue of an unliquidated claim the balance due is deemed to be an unliqui-dated sum upon which interest is not recoverable.” Hansen v. Covell, 218 Cal. 622 , 24 P.2d 772, 776 (1933) 9 (dictum) (citations omitted). 1979There are three general rules of law concerning the availability of interest where an unliquidated counterclaim or setoff is asserted against a liquidated claim. 8 One of these rules, which Bender urges us to apply here, has been stated as follows: “where the liquidated demand is subject to reduction by virtue of an unliquidated claim the balance due is deemed to be an unliqui-dated sum upon which interest is not recoverable.” Hansen v. Covell, 218 Cal. 622 , 24 P.2d 772, 776 (1933) 9 (dictum) (citations omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baccaro v. Pisa
green
1 sentence1994According to 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.04 (1994), an unliquidated claim for attorney’s fees is not a suit for a sum certain, citing Davis v. National Mortgage Corp., 320 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.1963); Bacca-ro v. Pisa, 252 F.Supp. 900 (S.D.N.Y.1966). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Davis v. National Mortgage Corp.
green
1 sentence1994According to 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55.04 (1994), an unliquidated claim for attorney’s fees is not a suit for a sum certain, citing Davis v. National Mortgage Corp., 320 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.1963); Bacca-ro v. Pisa, 252 F.Supp. 900 (S.D.N.Y.1966). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Link v. Wabash Railroad
green
2 sentences1984This general rule “does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary hearing offends due process.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 632 , 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). 1984This general rule “does not mean that every order entered without notice and a preliminary hearing offends due process.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 632 , 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Marlin v. Cardillo
green
2 sentences1980See also Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. v. Woodworth, supra, 142 U.S.App.D.C. at 42 , 439 F.2d at 552 ; Marlin v. Cardillo, 68 App.D.C. 201 , 95 F.2d 112 (1938). 1980See also Morauer & Hartzell, Inc. v. Woodworth, supra, 142 U.S.App.D.C. at 42 , 439 F.2d at 552 ; Marlin v. Cardillo, 68 App.D.C. 201 , 95 F.2d 112 (1938). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.