Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Citation
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1992-05-12
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2309241/cormier-v-mcrae/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
Full Text
931 charsWe now confront a situation similar to the one hypothesized in Pritch. The landlord here alleged that the tenant had allowed extra persons to live in the apartment, had refused to pay for pilfered electricity, had refused to allow access to the apartment for repairs, and had endangered the health and safety of other tenants. The tenant has not denied these allegations, and for purposes of this review we accept them as true.8 We now hold, in keeping with the Pritch dicta, that a landlord may file an action for possession of leased residential premises alleging violation of "an obligation of tenancy," other than nonpayment of rent, if the tenant has not "correct[ed] the violation within 30 days after receiving . . . notice to correct the violation or vacate," D.C. Code § 45-2551(b) — without regard to the timing requirement for nonpayment cases imposed in Pritch and without regard to the timing requirement in § 45-1402.