Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)

Citation
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Parent Document
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2013-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text

605 chars
We similarly conclude that Ms. Bridges was not required to refer explicitly to the retaliation defense in her trial testimony. First, although she did not use the word “retaliation,” Ms. Bridges did provide testimony sufficient to support the retaliation defense, by testifying that she filed complaints with the D.C. Housing Authority regarding housing-code violations on dates that were within six months of the date on which Mr. Clark filed this eviction action. See Gomez, 967 A.2d at 1289 (statutory presumption triggered “if a tenant alleges acts which fall under the retaliatory eviction statute”).