Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-10-13

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text

1,063 chars
Judge Ferren’s opinion for the court insists “there was no disqualifying vagueness here.” Ante at 1121. Given the number of judges who have joined either this dissent or Judge Farrell’s concurrence, that is not a statement to which a majority of this court subscribes. As Judge Ferren is compelled to concede, Ms. Douglas “never proffered the kinds of details that ordinarily would be required to convince a fact-finder that [her] proposal was reasonable, that is, likely to keep the apartment clean.” Ante at 1136. “For example,” the majority opinion acknowledges, “tenant’s counsel did not specify the number of days required for the stay, or the basis for assuring tenant cooperation, or the frequency and duration of cleaning by the District government.” Id. The February 20 letter from Ms. Douglas’s counsel, on which the majority opinion places so much reliance, did not even state “what kind of accommodation the tenant was seeking or how ... the District government would help,” and it did not even mention a stay of the eviction proceedings. Id. at 1124.