Jenkins v. Smith, 83-679.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-679.,83-679. |
| Citation | 499 A.2d 128 |
| Parties | Charles R. JENKINS and William E. Esham, Jr., Appellants, v. Hugh G. SMITH, C. Alexander Hewes, and Augmentation, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; Richard S. Salzman, Trial Judge.
Craig N. Goodrich, Washington, D.C., with whom Lee Calligaro, James C. Fontana, and Barry S. Landsberg, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellants.
Hugh B. Gordon, Washington, D.C., with whom C. Alexander Hewes, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on brief, for appellees. William F. Causey, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NE-BEKER, MACK, NEWMAN, FERREN, BELSON, TERRY, ROGERS and STEAD-MAN, Associate Judges.
Judges Nebeker, Mack, Ferren, Belson and Steadman join in Part I. Chief Judge Pryor and Judges Newman, Terry and Rogers dissent as to Part I. The court is unanimous as to Part II.
This case was argued before the division on January 4, 1984. Subsequently, this court sua sponte ordered the case reheard en banc and requested counsel, in supplemental memoranda and at oral argument, to address the question whether the holding in Frost v. Peoples Drug Store, 327 A.2d 810 (D.C. 1974), should be overruled. That holding permits an appeal to be taken from a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. Neither party urges that we overrule Frost. After rehearing the case en banc on September 11, 1985, a majority of the court reaffirms the holding in that case.
On the question whether the trial court improperly denied the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, we find no legal impropriety. The order from which this appeal is taken is therefore affirmed.
The opinion of the court as to Part II and other opinions will be issued at a later date. In the meantime, the Superior Court may proceed with its disposition of this case.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rolinski v. Lewis
...69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The full court reaffirmed that holding in 1985 by a five to four margin in Jenkins v. Smith, 499 A.2d 128 (D.C.1985) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Jenkins v. Smith, 535 A.2d 1367 (D.C.1987) (en banc) (issuing opinions expanding on per curiam decision)......
-
Beard v. South Main Bank, 89-CV-259.
...a prior holding6 that the denial of a forum non conveniens motion was immediately appealable as a "collateral order." Jenkins v. Smith, 499 A.2d 128 (D.C.1985), supplemental opinion, 535 A.2d 1367 (D.C.1987) (en banc). I was among the dissenters in Jenkins, believing strongly that review of......
-
Rolinski v. Lewis
...posture, the en banc court issued a brief per curiam opinion that declined to reexamine the jurisdictional question decided in Frost. 499 A.2d at 128. Four judges of the court dissented from this outcome, however. Judge Terry's opinion for the four dissenters argued that appeals from denial......
-
Jenkins v. Smith, 83-679.
...from a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. In a per curiam opinion, Jenkins v. Smith, 499 A.2d 128 (D.C. 1985) (en banc), this court unanimously affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss. In addition, a majority of the court concluded that......