Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

219 A.2d 491

Rosenblum v. Cherner

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1966-05-12

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-05-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2014

1 district · 11 state decisions

30196619701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, now appellee, rescinding a contract for breach of warranty.

¶2 The arguments in support of this appeal deal generally with issues of fact. The record shows that appellant, a dentist, contracted to make two sets of dentures for appellee and was paid $550. Appellee testified, and her testimony was corroborated in the main by appellant, that when she placed the order appellant assured her that he would “please her to her personal satisfaction”; that the dentures proved most unsatisfactory; that after returning for adjustments many times, she tendered the return of the dentures; and that appellant refused to accept them and ordered her from his office. On the basis of the evidence the court found for appellee.

¶3 Our examination of the transcript shows that there was ample proof to support the trial court’s finding. We have said time and again that we have no right or power to retry factual issues and therefore the judgment must be

¶4 Affirmed.

/219/a2d/491 · .json · Public domain