Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Citation
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Parent Document
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1985-01-09
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2265454/wahl-v-watkis/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
- Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
Full Text
818 chars375 A.2d 221, 223 n. 1 (D.C.1977). The court complied with the rules of the Landlord and Tenant Branch by inquiring of the tenant’s defenses and she was unable, even after conferring with a law student, to present any defense, although her remarks to the trial court indicated she was not only aware of her statutory rights but able to articulate her position to the court. (For example, she described in some detail how, as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner, she had forced the former owner to comply with the tenants’ statutory right to purchase). Under these circumstances, without some indication of a possible defense, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance where the tenant had sufficient prior notice of the hearing and an opportunity to consult with counsel if she so wished.