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
1,086 charsEven if we were to apply this legislative rule of statutory construction, it does not provide a straightforward answer to the question before us. "[S]trengthening the legal rights of tenants" as a whole is not the same thing as devising an ad hoc rule that would permit an individual tenant to win. Moreover, the provision of TOPA at issue in this case was meant to balance the rights of tenants and owners. "[N]o legislation pursues its purposes at all costs. Deciding what competing values will or will not be sacrificed to the achievement of a particular objective is the very essence of legislative choiceand it frustrates rather than effectuates legislative intent simplistically to assume that whatever furthers the statute's primary objective must be the law." Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525-26, 107 S.Ct. 1391, 94 L.Ed.2d 533 (1987). Indeed, as we have demonstrated above, the interpretation of "provide ... with" that we adopt today could in fact benefit tenants as well as owners, even though it does not help the individual tenant in this case. IV. Conclusion