judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

IN RE: ESTATE OF JAMES P. JARVIS; SHANNON JARVIS-BANKS, ETAL

Case Information: 05-PR-1186
Short Caption:IN RE: ESTATE OF JAMES P. JARVIS; SHANNON JARVIS-BANKS, ETALClassification:Appeals - Probate - Probate
Lead:05-PR-1186Consolidated: 05-PR-1476
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:ADM1036-03Filed Date:09/23/2005

Opening Event Date:09/23/2005Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:04/12/2006

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantShannon Jarvis-Banks N
Jaime T. ZeasNN
AppellantLacreasha Kennedy-Jarvis N
Jaime T. ZeasNN
AppelleeEstate of James P. JarvisN
Darrel S. ParkerNY
AppelleeGreer Burris N
Cheryl Chapman Henderson NN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
09/23/2005NOTICE OF APPEAL (RT Noted - ee)
11/02/2005 On consideration of the notice of appeal filed in this case on September 23, 2005, it is ORDERED that appellant shall, within 20 days from the date of this order, complete and file with this court a single copy of the attached statement regarding transcript. Where transcript(s) necessary for this appeal have been ordered and completed for non-appeal purposes, appellant must advise the Court Reporting Division to forward said transcript(s) for inclusion in the record on appeal. If partial transcripts are being ordered, appellant must file a statement of issues to be raised on appeal with this court within 10 days from the date of this order. See D.C. App. R. 10 (b)(3)(A). It is FURTHER ORDERED appellant's failure to respond to any order of this court, including this order, shall subject this appeal to dismissal without further notice for lack of prosecution. See D.C. App. R. 13(a). (BY: GPJ)
11/18/2005STATEMENT REGARDING TRANSCRIPT(S) (RT Ordered - 8/5/05TP) ee
01/11/2006ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that appellant shall within 20 days from the date of this order SHOW CAUSE why APPEAL NO. 05-PR-1476 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as having been untimely filed. See D.C. App. R. 4(a). It is F/ORDERED that appellants shall within 20 days SHOW CAUSE why appeal NO. 05-PR-1476 should not be dismissed as a DUPLICATE of APPEAL NO. 05-PR-1186. It is F/ORDERED that as the proceedings below are only stayed because of APPEAL NO. 05-PR-1186, that appellants shall within 20 days from the date of this order SHOW CAUSE why BOTH APPEALS should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-final order. See West v. Morris, 711 A.2d 1269, 1271 ( D.C. 1998). (BY: ETW) lw
01/11/2006TMC - OTSC (05-PR-1186 & 05-PR-1476) - motion for continuance construed as a request for additional time - response
02/07/2006APLT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER/RESPONSE to OTSC until mid-March
02/13/2006ORD GRT APLT MO TO EXT TM TO FILE ANSWER/RESPONSE TO THE EXTENT that the response to the order to show cause is filed no later than March 10, 2006. (RDKNST)
03/06/2006RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - to court order
03/20/2006 On consideration of this court's February 13, 2006, order granting appellants' moiton for extension to file a response to an order to show cause directing appellant to show cause why appeal no. 05-pr-1186 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a non-final order and appeal no. 05-pr-1476 should not be dismissed as either untimely or as duplicate of appeal no. 05-PR-1186 and the response thereto, it is ORDERED that APPEAL NO. 05-PR-1186 is HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as having been filed from a non-final order. It is *****MORE*****
03/20/2006 FURTHER ORDERED that APPEAL NO. 05-PR-1476 is HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as having been untimely filed and as being a DUPLICATE of appeal no. 05-PR-1186. (RDKNST)
03/20/2006DISMISSED
04/12/2006MANDATE ISSUED
06/06/2006MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE and reconsider Denied
06/27/2006ORDER On consideration of aplts' motion to recall mandate and reconsider, it is ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied. See West v. Morris, 711 A.2d 1269, 1271 (D.C. 1998). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to recall mandate is denied as moot. See Watson v. U.S., 536 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C. 1987). (RD,KN,ST)
11/01/2006APPELLANT'S MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MOTION for clarification.
01/22/2007ORDER On consideration of aplt's motion for clarification, citing Murphy v. McCloud, 650 A.2d 202 (DC 1994), and it apprg that, unlike Murphy, no final order regarding the removal of personal representative has been issued inasmuch as various motions relating thereto were still pending and relevant proceedings were ongoing, it is ORDERED that the motion for clarification is otherwise denied. (RD,KN,ST)