Case Information: 07-FM-1266 | |||
Short Caption: | WILLIAM A. VAN CROFT V. RUBY M. VAN CROFT | Classification: | Appeals - Family - Other Family |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | CPO1625-07 | Filed Date: | 11/20/2007 |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 11/20/2007 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
Briefs Completed: | |||
Argued/Submitted: | |||
Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
Mandate Issued: | 01/10/2008 |
Party Information | |||||
Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer |
Appellant | William A. Van Croft, IV | N | Pro Se | N | |
Appellee | Ruby M. Van Croft | N | Pro Se | N |
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
11/20/2007 | NOTICE OF APPEAL ******FILED PER 11/26/07 ORDER LW | |||
11/20/2007 | RECEIVED - appellant's MOTION TO STAY EVICTION & CONTEMPT | |||
11/20/2007 | RECEIVED - appellant's MOTION TO PROCEED IFP | |||
11/26/2007 | TMC - appellant's motion for IFP - (LODGED) notice of appeal - (LODGED) motion to stay eviction & contempt | |||
11/26/2007 | ORDERED that appellant's MOTION TO PROCEED IFP IS GRANTED and the Clerk SHALL FILE the NOTICE OF APPEAL and LODGED motions. The Clerk SHALL also TRANSMIT a copy of the NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE CLERK, Superior Court, to be filed and processed. It is *****MORE***** | |||
11/26/2007 | APPELLANT'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS | |||
11/26/2007 | APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY | |||
11/26/2007 | RECEIVED - appellant's motion to supplement the record | |||
11/26/2007 | APLT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD | |||
11/26/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's MOTION TO STAY order pending appeal IS DENIED on the merits. It is ****MORE***** | |||
11/26/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD IS DENIED since the documents sought to include are not part of the proceeding on appeal. It is *****MORE***** | |||
11/26/2007 | FURTHER ORDERED that appellant shall, within 20 days from the date of this order SHOW CAUSE why this appeal should not be dismissed either for lack of jurisdiction as having been taken from a non-final order since the hearing on the motion for contempt is scheduled for November 28, 2007, or for lack of standing since appellant is not aggrieved as he entered a consent agreement. See Crane v. Crane, 614 A.2d 935, 939 (D.C. 1992); Beckwith v. Beckwith, 379 A.2d 955, 958 (D.C. 1977). (FATHBE) | |||
11/26/2007 | TMC - OTSC | |||
12/18/2007 | ORDERED that THIS APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Crane v. Crane, 614 A.2d 935, 939 (D.C. 1992); Beckwith v. Beckwith, 379 A.2d 955, 958 (D.C. 1977). (FATHBE) | |||
12/18/2007 | DISMISSED | |||
01/10/2008 | MANDATE ISSUED |