Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

911 chars
Petitioner’s argument that the Civil Infractions Act (permitting the imposition of alternative civil fines by DCRA) implicitly repealed D.C.Code § 42—3509.01(b)(4) (authorizing the imposition of civil fines up to $5000 by the RHC and the Rent Administrator) must overcome the principle that “[r]epeals by implication are not favored.” Luck v. District of Columbia, 617 A.2d 509, 514 (D.C.1992). When two successive legislative enactments address the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both, if possible. See United States Parole Comm’n v. Noble, 693 A.2d 1084, 1087 (D.C.1997) (en banc). Indeed, “in the absence of some affirmative showing of an intention to repeal, the only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is [that] the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.” Id. (citations omitted) (alteration in original). That is not the situation here. As we explained in Revithes,