History
  • No items yet
midpage
Foster v. Canan
661 A.2d 636
D.C.
1995
Check Treatment

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The division is of the opinion that the issue presented by the petition has been resolved against petitioner by this court’s combined decisions in Browner v. District of Columbia, 549 A.2d 1107 (D.C.1988); Olevsky v. District of Columbia, 548 A.2d 78 (D.C.1988); In re Thompson, 454 A.2d 1324 (D.C.1982); and Scott v. District of Columbia, 122 A.2d 579 (D.C.1956). Even if that were not the case, the division is unable to conclude, in light of these decisions, that the right to a petition for a writ of mandamus is “ ‘clear and indisputable’ ” in this case. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1143-44, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (quoting Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is removed from the oral argument calendar for Monday, June 19, 1995. It is

FURTHER ORDERED by the division, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall poll the full court regarding whether this case shall be heard by the court en banc.

Case Details

Case Name: Foster v. Canan
Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 14, 1995
Citation: 661 A.2d 636
Docket Number: 94-SP-1432
Court Abbreviation: D.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In