Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Citation
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Parent Document
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1983-05-31
Other Sections in This Document (80)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115 (1983)
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 788
- § 263
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
- § 266
Full Text
456 charsAs to the second rent increase, landlord contends also that the trial court erred substantively in invalidating a 7% rent increase taken by the landlord pursuant to the Emergency Heating Oil Rent Adjustment Act of 1979, D.C.Act 3-115. Tenants assert that the trial court erred in denying their oral motion for summary judgment based on landlord’s failure to file a statement of certification of costs with the trial court in accordance with our decision in