District of Columbia v. Campbell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff did not meet the D.C. Code § 12-309 notice requirement with regard to claims, including negligence, against the District of Columbia
• explaining that the plaintiffs fluctuating damage claims during the course of the litigation “itself likely would be sufficient grounds ... to conclude that the damages ... were unliquidated”
• affirming the trial judge’s decision that the evidence was sufficient for the veil- piercing issue to be submitted to the jury
• \Such fluctuation in itself likely would be sufficient grounds for us to conclude that the damages [the plaintiff] claimed were unliquidated.\
• “In the vast majority of cases, the third-party beneficiary’s action lies only against the promisor.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).