# M.M. & G., Inc. v. Jackson

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · July 2, 1992 · 612 A.2d 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543260

## Case

- **Full name:** M.M. & G., INC., Et Al., Appellants, v. William JACKSON, Personal Representative for the Estate of Mary W. Brown, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 2, 1992
- **Citations:** 612 A.2d 186; 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 169; 1992 WL 151195
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gallagher
- **Judges:** Farrell, King, Gallagher
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543260

## Opinion text

GALLAGHER, Senior Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the court’s opinion except in the discussion about advice of counsel. As I understand the opinion, the record does not support a contention that appellant continued with improvements to the house after having received the advice of counsel. (See note 2 of court’s opinion.) This being so, I would think that any discussion about proceeding upon advice of counsel should be considered irrelevant; and this sensitive area of the law therefore need not be opened.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543260. Public record. Not legal advice.