# Fairman v. District of Columbia

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 25, 2007 · 934 A.2d 438

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754115

## Case

- **Full name:** John A. FAIRMAN, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 25, 2007
- **Citations:** 934 A.2d 438; 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1607; 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 640; 2007 WL 3096588
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steadman
- **Judges:** Wagner, Nebeker, Steadman
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9754115

## Opinion text

STEADMAN, Senior Judge,
concurring:
Principles of judicial and equitable es-toppel applicable to private parties do not translate readily where the government is a litigant and considerations of protection of the public físc and the public interest are involved. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Gould, 852 A.2d 50, 56-57 (D.C. 2004); Mamo v. District of Columbia, 934 A.2d 876, 386-87 (2007). However, in the particular and special circumstances presented here, coupled with the discretionary nature of permitting new arguments to be made even by the government for the first time on appeal, see, e.g., District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. P’ship, 630 A.2d 174, 182-84 (D.C.1993), I concur in the ultimate conclusion that the District at this point may not challenge the validity of the original 1997 agreement, and I otherwise join the opinion of the court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754115. Public record. Not legal advice.