District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1987

Bussineau v. President of Georgetown College

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Decided May 4, 1987 · Belson, Ferren, Grant, MacK, Nebeker, Newman, Pryor, Rogers, Steadman, Terry

525 A.2d 595; 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 356 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Capitol Place I Associates L.P. v. George Hyman Construction Co. (D.C. 1996)
Braune v. Abbott Laboratories (District Court, E.D. New York 1995)
Bussineau v. Georgetown University (D.C. 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response and the reply thereto; and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

NEBEKER and TERRY, Associate Judges, would grant rehearing en banc.

Dissenting Opinion

Statement of

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,

regarding the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

I dissented from the division opinion on the ground that I disagreed with its rationale and the authority of the division to depart from binding precedent. Bussineau v. President and Directors of Georgetown College, 518 A.2d 423, 436 (D.C. 1986). When the petition for rehearing en banc was filed, it became even more clear that this case is an extremely important one which requires en banc determination. However, response to the en banc petition has precipitated the recusal of three judges of this court. Accordingly, only six judges have voted on the petition, *596two of whom voted to grant it. Thus, it can be seen that a majority of the active judges of this court has not been able to decide the question presented in the petition for rehearing en banc. It remains an open question.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.