Legal Opinion
Heindrich v. Dimas-Aruti
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 19, 1945No. 279PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RICHARDSON, Chief Judge.
Judgment for -possession was entered in a suit by owners of a dwelling house and the defendant tenant has appealed. The only disputed issue was whether the plaintiffs established their right under Sec. 5(b) (2) of the District of Columbia Emergen*139cy Rent Control Act1 authorizing repossession when—
“The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the property for his immediate and personal use and occupancy as a dwelling.”
Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, purchased the property involved in September, 1944. Defendant was then tenant under a lease expiring…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Block v. HirshSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- The Santissima Trinidad.Supreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Sviggum v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Gould v. ButlerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
- Shaffer v. BowesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Staves v. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
- Hicks v. BigelowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
- Olessoff v. OsbournDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
- McMahon v. WeinerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949
- Hoffman v. Apostolic Works, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.