Section 11-735

Citation: Section 11-735
Parent Document: Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1978-06-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2073911/mendes-v-johnson/ ↗

Full Text

762 chars

In the instant case, on the other hand, Johnson is the tenant of a residence. Unlike Snitman, the landlord may not have been entitled to to possession, regardless of the means used to acquire possession.1 Unlike Snitman, Johnson had an opportunity to prove and failed to prove that she suffered any loss as a direct result of dispossession of the leased premises.2 Unlike Snit-man, Johnson claimed — and proved — a loss resulting from damage to her furnishings, i. e., chattels to which the landlord was not even arguably entitled except, possibly, as an' involuntary bailee. Indeed, the trial judge, while expressing disagreement with the Snitman decision, awarded compensatory damages only for damage to the chattels, a result entirely consistent with Snitman.

Other Sections in This Document (216)

Full Text