Section 1639
- Citation
- Section 1639
- 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)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Tippett v. Daly, 10 A.3d 1123 (2010)
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
- Section 1639
Full Text
1,207 chars“[T]he Supreme Court often has said ‘the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.’ ” Winters v. Ridley, 596 A.2d 569, 579 (D.C.1991) (Ferren, J., concurring) (quoting United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313, 80 S.Ct. 326, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960)). See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 530 n. 27, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) (quoting Price). The hazard certainly is greatest in circumstances like these, where more than two decades have passed, and the Council that acted in 2009 did not contain any members who passed the legislation in 1980, 1983, and 1988. Cf. Winters, 596 A.2d at 578 (Schwelb, J., concurring) (“Relatively little time elapsed between the enactment of the GTCA [in 1986] and the Council’s actions in 1989. Most of the legislators were members of the Council at both relevant times.”); United States ex rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical Institute, Inc., 335 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 339-40, 173 F.3d 870, 878-79 (1999) (“Post-enactment legislative history ... becomes of absolutely no significance when the subsequent Congress ... takes on the role of a court and in its reports asserts the meaning of a prior statute.”).