§ 42-3505
- Citation
- § 42-3505
- 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
638 charsDOHA presented testimony about the prevalence of auto theft and abandonment in and around the Benning Terrace complex and the hazard to residents from young people driving stolen cars through the complex at high speeds. At the close of trial, the judge instructed the jury (as relevant here) that, to support eviction, DOHA had to prove that Davon Pratt had “committed [the] crime of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle” (UUV) and that this criminal activity had disturbed the safety or peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other residents, as set forth in paragraph 5 (i). 2 The jury found both facts and awarded possession to DOHA. II.