Legal Opinion
Shannon & Luchs Co. v. Tindal
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided June 9, 1980No. 79-1048PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARRIS, Associate Judge:
Appellant, who is appellee’s landlord, brought, an action to recover possession of an apartment, based on the tenant’s violation of a no-pet covenant in the lease. At the close of the evidence in a jury trial, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the tenant, finding as a matter of law that the landlord had permanently waived its right to enforce the covenant against her. After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to appellant, we find that there was sufficient evidence to require submission of the waiver issue to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Corley v. BP Oil Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Bauman v. SragowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1973
- Lottie R. Seganish and Daniel Seganish v. District of Columbia Safeway Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
- Kaiser v. RapleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
- Stewart v. Shannon & Luchs Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pazmino v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Habib v. ThurstonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Entrepreneur, Ltd. v. YasunaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Abebe v. BenitezDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- City Wide Learning Center, Inc. v. William C. Smith & Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.