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

907 chars
25
Tenants might argue that, given the decision in McKinney v. Washington, supra, that the similar claim of the tenants in the Thompson case was unlikely to prevail on the merits, application for a stay pending appeal would probably have been futile. However, rather than putting the Linda Pollin Corporation on notice immediately after the escrow account was disbursed, or even at the first status call following remand from our decision in Marshall I, tenants' counsel waited until January 29, 1975 to inform the District Court that the tenants intended to seek restitution of all or part of the 1970 rent increase. Indeed, the holding in McKinney illustrates the reasonableness of the Pollin Corporation's reliance on the validity of the rent increase; like Lemon I, Marshall I "decided an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed." See note 4 and accompanying text, supra.