Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Citation
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Parent Document
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2008-02-21
Other Sections in This Document (60)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- Pratt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 942 A.2d 656 (2008)
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
- § 42-3505
Full Text
743 charsWhen appellant failed to vacate as required, DCHA sued for possession of the rental unit in Superior Court. Before trial, the judge struck the alleged violation of paragraph 5(m) from the complaint because, while it prohibited “illegal activity,” it did not impose responsibility on appellant to “cause other persons” to refrain from that activity, and the illegal activity alleged was ascribed only to her son, not herself. DCHA ultimately did not object to this deletion, and has not challenged it by cross-appeal. On the other hand, the judge rejected appellant’s request to dismiss the suit because she had not been given an opportunity to correct (or cure) the violation of paragraph 5 (1), as required — she maintained — by D.C.Code *659