Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Citation
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2002-11-27
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
- Killingham v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 810 A.2d 925 (2002)
Full Text
895 charsPER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the District, of Columbia Rental Housing Commission rejecting her claim of retaliation by the housing provider and ordering a rent refund in an amount petitioner contends was inadequate. She also challenges the Commission’s denial of her motion to reconsider its decision. A review of the record demonstrates that the Commission dealt carefully and correctly with each issue petitioner presented to it on appeal from the attorney examiner’s decision. In particular, while noting that the attorney examiner had misallocated the burden of proof in rejecting the retaliation claim, the Commission determined from the examiner’s “painstaking” review of the evidence and findings of fact that the error was harmless, because the housing provider had convincingly rebutted the statutory presumption of retaliation. See D.C.Code § 42-3505.02 (2001).