Bernstein Management Corp. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 952 A.2d 190 (2008)

Citation: Bernstein Management Corp. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 952 A.2d 190 (2008)
Parent Document: Bernstein Management Corp. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 952 A.2d 190 (2008)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2008-07-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5143675/bernstein-management-corp-v-dis... ↗

Full Text

1,354 chars

Our scope of review in administrative cases prohibits the substitution of this court’s judgment in areas of expertise reserved for the administrative agency, see Kegley v. District of Columbia, 440 A.2d 1013, 1018 (D.C.1982), including an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute it is charged with implementing. See Dorchester House Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. D.C. Rental Hous. Comm’n, 938 A.2d 696, 702 (D.C.2007). Under the judicial review provisions of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act (“DCAPA”), see D.C.Code § 2-510 (2001), the court inquires whether the agency made findings of fact on each material, contested factual issue, based its findings on substantial evidence, and drew conclusions of law that flow rationally from those findings. See Bio-Med. Applications of the District of Columbia v. D.C. Bd. of Appeals & Review, 829 A.2d 208, 215 (D.C.2003). Agency findings of fact and conclusions of law must be affirmed if supported by and in accordance with reliable, probative and substantive evidence in the record. See id. This court will reverse a decision that was made arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise not in accordance with law or contrary to constitutional rights; or in excess of statutory jurisdiction or authority; or without observance of procedure required by law. See D.C.Code § 2-510(a)(3) (2001).

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text