# Hornstein v. Barry

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 20, 1989 · 560 A.2d 530

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698499

## Case

- **Full name:** David HORNSTEIN, Et Al., Appellants, v. Marion BARRY, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 20, 1989
- **Citations:** 560 A.2d 530; 1989 D.C. App. LEXIS 121; 1989 WL 67499
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Newman
- **Judges:** MacK, Newman, Ferren, Belson, Terry, Steadman, Schwelb, Reilly, Pryor
- **Cited by:** 34 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/9698499

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a limited record may make it “problematical” to resolve through summary judgment a de facto taking case in which “an ad, hoc case by case inquiry is called for”
- applying federal rule serves "the interest of harmony between court systems and uniformity of result in the same geographical area"
- emphasizing desirability of “harmony between court systems and uniformity of result in the same geographic area”

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join in so much of the judgment of the court as holds constitutionally valid the tenant consent part of the statute. I dissent from the remand on the “taking” issue. Given the fact that Hornstein’s complaint did not allege an unconstitutional uncompensated taking (as distinguished from the tenant consent issue) it is not surprising to me that the District did not move for summary judgment on that question. In his opposition to summary judgment, Horn-stein never raised this as an issue. Thus, it *539 is not surprising to me, in this context, that the trial court did not consider as an issue something that no party raised by pleading or otherwise. I am unable to join my colleagues in ruling that this was error by the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698499. Public record. Not legal advice.