Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)

Citation: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Parent Document: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-08-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147069/clark-v-bridges/ ↗

Full Text

1,290 chars

. In light of our conclusion that the landlord’s appeal must be allowed, we do not reach the tenant’s argument that if the appeal was untimely, the court would lack jurisdiction to entertain it. Compare Circle Liquors, Inc. v. Cohen, 670 A.2d at 385 (holding that D.C.App. R. 4's thirty-day time to appeal is "mandatory and jurisdictional”), with Bowles v. Bussell, 551 U.S. 205, 210, 211, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (distinguishing between jurisdictional provisions, generally embodied in statutes, that delineate the authority of the court to consider a case, and non-jurisdictional “claim-processing rules,” which are found in court rules), Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004) (holding that failure to comply with time requirement in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004 did not affect the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction), and Capitol Hill Restoration Soc'y v. Mayor's Agent for Historic Pres., 44 A.3d 271, 277 (D.C.2012) (holding that the time to appeal set out in Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15 "acquires the force of a statutory jurisdictional mandate” because the applicable statute providing for judicial review, D.C.Code § 2-510(a), requires compliance with the time period set forth in the court rules). . See D.C.App. R. 4(a)(4)(A).

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text