§ 266
- Citation
- § 266
- 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
662 charsIn the instant case, the trial judge undertook to adjudicate the legality of two rent increases. Tenants had not sought review of either before the Rent Administrator. If the procedure we have described above had been in place, the trial judge would have assumed the validity of both rent increases. Although we are mindful of our holding with respect to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction we have, nevertheless, in the interest of fair resolution of this particular appeal, considered the legality of the two rent increases, and determined that the result would have been the same if the trial judge had assumed the validity of the increases. Both were valid.