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
498 charsThis decision implies no disrespect for the Council, nor does it step beyond our proper role as judges. Ultimately, the interpretation of statutes is “the responsibility of courts, not of subsequently elected legislative bodies.” Winters, 596 A.2d at 577 (Schwelb, J., concurring) (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988)). In sum, nothing about the recent amendments changes our understanding of what the statute meant in 2001. 5. Other Considerations