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
537 charsIn the present case, the hearing examiner apparently believed that the tenant was required to prove retaliation by clear and convincing evidence, while in fact, as the agency and the court both recognize, this very formidable burden should have been imposed upon the landlord. The shift in burden was a substantial one. In such instances, I would ordinarily vote to. remand the case to the trier of fact to determine whether he — and not the Commission — would find that the landlord had carried the day by clear and convincing evidence.