Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Timus v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 8, 1993No. 90-AA-465Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFerren, Associate Judge

I agree with Part III of the majority opinion that this court has jurisdiction to decide the general legal validity of 4 DCMR § 716.9, see ante at n. 3, by virtue of our “jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction.” Ante at 757-758. I also concur — halfway— with the majority’s Part IV in that I agree, generally speaking, that § 716.9 incorporates a valid approach. I respectfully dissent, however, from definitively upholding § 716.9 at this time. I believe we cannot properly make that decision without a remand to ascertain the criteria and procedures the Office of Human Rights…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Arthur Young & Co. v. SutherlandDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human RightsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Chevy Chase Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia CouncilDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Kegley v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API