Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Mathis v. District of Columbia Housing Authority
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 8, 2015No. 13-CV-1026 & 15-AA-740Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcLEESE, Associate Judge
I agree that the proceeding before the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) in this case was a contested case and that the DCHA’s ruling is properly reviewed in this court. I therefore join Part II.A. of the opinion for the court.
I also agree that Mr. Mathis’s petition for review is not time-barred, but I would rest that conclusion on narrower grounds. The opinion for the court holds that the time limits applicable to petitions for review in this court are not jurisdictional. As the opinion for the court acknowledges, however, this court held the opposite only three years ago, in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bowles v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. PartnershipDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Brass Metal Products, Inc. v. E-J Enterprises Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Vogel v. District of Columbia Office of PlanningDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Pierola v. MoschonasDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.