Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (216)

Full Text

606 chars
Because — and only because — the majority have decided this case by wholly overruling Snitman instead of so easily distinguishing it, I concur with my brethren who believe that the decision should have only prospective effect. Had we held for the tenant upon any of the narrower grounds, including the one relied upon by the trial court, the landlord would not have been justified in a reliance upon Snitman. But since the majority, by explicitly overruling Snitman, imply that the landlord’s actions were consistent with existing law, I would insist upon prospective application of an overruling decision.