Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Citation
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Parent Document
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1992-05-12
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2309241/cormier-v-mcrae/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
- Cormier v. McRae, 609 A.2d 676 (1992)
Full Text
1,014 charsThis reasoning in Jones could be read to justify appellee's argument that the § 45-1402 timing provision should be held to supplement the 30-day notice requirement under § 45-2551(b) because they can "be read harmoniously" together. Id. Two years after Jones, however, we decided Cooley v. Suitland Pkwy.Overlook Tenants' Ass'n, 460 A.2d 574 (D.C. 1983), a suit for possession based on alleged violation of a lease obligation limiting residency in the apartment to family members and others named in the rental application. We noted in Cooley that the law since Jones had changed — i.e., that the 1980 Rental Housing Act, in supplanting the 1977 Act, had made "it explicitly clear that a notice to cure or vacate is all that a landlord is required to give to a tenant before filing suit for possession based on a tenant's failure to correct a violation of the tenancy." Id. at 575-76. Thus, a separate "notice to quit" was no longer required; the 1980 Act "merg[ed] both notice requirements into one." Id. at 576.6