Timus v. District of Columbia Department of Human Rights
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Arthur Young & Co. v. SutherlandDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human RightsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Chevy Chase Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia CouncilDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1974
- Kegley v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.