INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)

Citation
Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
Parent Document
Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2010-12-30
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551230/tippett-v-daly/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (168)

Full Text

600 chars 
The remaining question then is whether the tenant “provide[d] the owner ... with” the statement of interest when he placed it in the mail on May 18 or whether, as the owner contends, the tenant did not “provide [him] with” the statement until he received it on June 2. The meaning of the term “provide ... with” is a question of statutory interpretation, and we review the trial court’s decision de novo. Wemhoff v. District of Columbia, 887 A.2d 1004, 1007 (D.C.2005); 1618 Twenty-First Street Tenants’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Phillips Collection, 829 A.2d 201, 203 (D.C.2003). 1. The Language of the Statute