Lena Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853 (1972)

Citation: Lena Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853 (1972)
Parent Document: Lena Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation, 463 F.2d 853 (1972)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1972-04-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/304588/lena-robinson-v-diamond-housing-... ↗

Full Text

1,277 chars

Although there is substantial evidence as to the condition of the premises during the time Mrs. Robinson occupied them,27 the record is not complete, particularly as to the precipitating cause of her leaving. Under the circumstances, it would be improper for us on the basis of cross-affidavits to attempt resolution of the factual controversy underlying the mootness claim on appeal. Since this case must be remanded in any event, the trial court28 should be permitted to determine whether Mrs. Robinson’s departure was caused by her own actions or by the code violations.29 In the interest of expediting this already lengthy controversy, we have set out the alternative courses which the trial court should follow after the mootness issue is decided. If it finds that Mrs. Robinson voluntarily left the premises, it should vacate the initial judgment, thus leaving the landlord in possession. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., supra. If, on the other hand, it finds that code violations caused Mrs. Robinson’s departure, it should set the case for trial on the issue of retaliatory eviction. The jury’s evaluation of that defense will then determine the question of legal possession. Ill

Other Sections in This Document (189)

Full Text