# Alexander v. District of Columbia

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · February 24, 1977 · 370 A.2d 1327

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747581

## Case

- **Full name:** John A. ALEXANDER, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 24, 1977
- **Citations:** 370 A.2d 1327; 1977 D.C. App. LEXIS 428
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gallagher
- **Judges:** Kelly, Gallagher, Reilly
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9747581

## Opinion text

GALLAGHER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. A domicile once acquired is presumed to continue. Dixon v. Dixon, D.C. App., 190 A.2d 652 (1963); Shilkret v. Helvering, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 178 , 138 F.2d 925 (1943). Here, the trial court concluded, in essence, that the evidence did not establish an intent, to remain in Japan permanently or indefinitely. See Shilkret v. Helvering, *1331 supra at 180, 138 F.2d 925 . Though the place of residence is generally taken to be the domicile, I think the evidence adequately supports the trial court’s finding that, on this record, there was no change of domicile from the District of Columbia to Japan. Because this case involves essentially whether there was this change of domicile, I view District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 , 62 S.Ct. 303 , 86 L.Ed. 329 (1941), relied upon by the majority as factually distinguishable and not controlling. 1
I see no adequate reason to overturn the trial court’s conclusion on appellant’s domicile.
. I also do not agree that our decisions in Rzeszotarski v. Rzeszotarski, D.C.App., 296 A.2d 431 (1972), and Alves v. Alves, D.C.App., 262 A.2d 111 (1970), are compelling authority here. The factual situations in those cases are so dissimilar to this case as to render them inapplicable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747581. Public record. Not legal advice.