Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Reverend Chester C. Thompson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Walter E. Washington, Individually and as Commissioner of the District of Columbia and as "The Authority" of the National Capitol Housing Authority Under Executive Order Elizabeth Marshall v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Individually and in Her Capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 551 F.2d 1316 (1977)

Citation
Reverend Chester C. Thompson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Walter E. Washington, Individually and as Commissioner of the District of Columbia and as "The Authority" of the National Capitol Housing Authority Under Executive Order Elizabeth Marshall v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Individually and in Her Capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 551 F.2d 1316 (1977)
Parent Document
Reverend Chester C. Thompson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Walter E. Washington, Individually and as Commissioner of the District of Columbia and as "The Authority" of the National Capitol Housing Authority Under Executive Order Elizabeth Marshall v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Individually and in Her Capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 551 F.2d 1316 (1977)
Effective Date
1977-02-15

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text

1,365 chars
5
This court's decisions in Thompson I and Marshall I upheld the merits of the tenants' claims to an opportunity to be heard on proposed rent increases, and reversed the District Court's judgments in favor of the housing officials. They did not address the nature of the relief to be awarded to the tenants. Upon remand to the District Court, tenants' counsel3 sought the following equitable relief in each of the two cases: (1) reinstatement of the rent schedule in force prior to the disputed increase in 1970; (2) recalculation of rents for the period following that increase, utilizing the procedures for tenant participation set out in Thompson I and Marshall I, or their equivalent, and restitution of such amounts as might be determined to have been excessive; and (3) an injunction ordering that all future rent increases accord the procedural rights contemplated by Thompson I and Marshall I. In both cases, however, the District Court declined to reinstate the pre-1970 rents or require reprocessing of the disputed rent increases; denied restitution; and limited relief to a declaratory judgment that future rent increases must be processed under procedures complying with the requirements set out in Thompson I and Marshall I. Thompson v. Washington, Civil No. 3000-69 (D.D.C., June 6, 1975); Marshall v. Lynn, Civil No. 2288-70 (D.D.C., June 27, 1975).