§ 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
449 charsDecision of Rent Administrator (May 23, 1980), the Rent Administrator had ruled that a 7% increase was proper for a four-unit building that was part of an apartment complex with over 250 units. The Rent Administrator based this conclusion upon the fact that a single boiler was used to heat eight units rather than 101 or more units. 13 The Rent Administrator’s interpretation of the regu *1122 lations is entitled to great weight. Udall v. Tallman,