Legal Opinion · Dissent

Golphin v. Park Monroe Associates

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 24, 1976No. 7797Published

1Dissent

*319NEBEKER, Associate Judge

(dissenting) :

My dissent will be brief. My colleagues step over established legal principles of property law in their effort to extend the latter-day rule respecting ulterior motive for eviction. In taking this step, they sacrifice attributes of private ownership of property which are essential to our system. They do it at a time when there is mounting indication that the initial step in this direction exacerbates rather than alleviates substandard housing and the shortage of low and medium income rental housing. See Edwards v. Habib, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 142-43, 397…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Yvonne C. Edwards v. Nathan HabibCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  2. Bell v. WestbrookDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
  3. Williams v. John F. Donohoe & Sons, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API