Amos N. Jones v. Catholic University of America

Did the District of Columbia Court of Appeals err in its failure to apply its very own intervening and controlling authority as per the Full Faith and Credit, Equal Protection, Procedural Due Process, and/or Substantive Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution when it (1) consumed more than four years to hear argument on and to determine whether seven paragraphs of Petitioner’s 75-page Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations with regard to the legal meaning of “intentionality,” (2) meanwhile decided and published different cases indicating, based on its published precedents, that Petitioner’s Complaint had fully satisfied the pleading standard, (3) nevertheless dismissed Petitioner’s case after Petitioner brought said intervening authority to the Court’s attention, as if no intervening, published, binding, and re-affirming-of-past-precedential authority had taken effect, and finally (4) opted not to publish its contrary opinion against Petitioner that stands to this day at odds with its own precedents and obligations under the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis?