Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 61–80 of 211 results

Section 23E

BLT Burger DC, LLC v. Norvin 1301 CT, LLC, 86 A.3d 1139 (2014) DC municipal

Tenant paid Landlord a $100,000 security deposit and rent for the first

§ 42-3501

Hum v Duda Final Order, No. TP-29461 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

jurisdiction over other aspects of security deposits. See Jordan v. Charles E. Smith Residential

Section 15-703

Landise v. Mauro, 927 A.2d 1026 (2007) DC municipal

A nonresident, at the commencement of his suit, may deposit with the clerk such *1031sum as the court deems sufficient as security for all costs that may accrue in the cause, which deposit may afterwards be increased on application, in...

Block v. Gates, 68 A.2d 215 (1949)

Block v. Gates, 68 A.2d 215 (1949) DC municipal

We agree that the exaction of the security deposit in the present case was a benefit to the landlord and a detriment to *218the tenant. It does not follow, however, that the tenant is entitled to recover twice the amount...

Section 23E

BLT Burger DC, LLC v. Norvin 1301 CT, LLC, 86 A.3d 1139 (2014) DC municipal

2011), reduced by $116,000 in the rent and security deposit that Tenant had paid.3

§ 42-3502

Miner v Gregory Perkins Final Order, No. TP-29317 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

§ 42-3502.17 [security deposits]), shall apply to each rental unit in the District except:

Pourbabai v. Bednarek (2021)

Pourbabai v. Bednarek (2021) DC municipal

return, including interest.” Id. § 309.3. His failure to rebut that evidence is sufficient grounds to affirm the tenant’s security-deposit claim.

Pourbabai v. Bednarek (2021)

Pourbabai v. Bednarek (2021) DC municipal

Pourbabai v. Bednarek (citation pending) Date filed: 2021-05-13 Doctrine: security_deposit Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4882758/pourbabai-v-bednarek/ --- 010combined ---

§ 42-3505

Carter v Shipe Final Order, No. TP-29411 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

reclaiming it as her residence. Such egregious, willful deception warrants a fine of $1,000 E. Security Deposit

§ 42-3501

Hum v Duda Final Order, No. TP-29461 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

others had for the Property. Hence, Tenant's claim for retaliation under the Act is denied. D. Security Deposit

§ 42-3501

Hum v Duda Final Order, No. TP-29461 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

security deposits. D.C. Official Code § 42-3502.17(b). A tenant is not entitled to interest if her

Satin v. Buckley, 246 A.2d 778 (1968)

Satin v. Buckley, 246 A.2d 778 (1968) DC municipal

the return of $150 deposited with the landlord as security, to which the landlord replied with the claim that the rent, as well as certain items of damage amounting to $100.16, were deductible against this deposit. After a trial...

§ 42-3502

TP_08_29292__Stokvis_et_al_v_Bonadeo_et_al.pdf, No. TP-29292 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs) DC municipal

security deposits; refunds which Housing Provider was not required to give since Tenants broke

Berg v. Slaff, 125 A.2d 844 (1956)

Berg v. Slaff, 125 A.2d 844 (1956) DC municipal

Pursuant to this agreement the tenant paid rent for April and the landlord applied $375 of the $900 security deposit to the rent for May and June. The tenant vacated on June 13, 1954, and thereafter brought this suit to...