Legal Opinion
Early v. Dorchester House Associates
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 19, 1993No. Nos. 91-CV-1090, 91-CV-1091 and 91-CV-1120PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
In this case, a misunderstanding by defendants’ counsel apparently induced by the Clerk’s Office resulted in what we conclude was a precipitous denial of defendants’ motion for reconsideration (in effect a motion under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59(e)). We therefore reverse and remand for renewed consideration of the motion.
I
Plaintiffs are the owner/landlord of a residential apartment building. Defendants, appellants here, are tenants in that building currently engaged in litigation with the owner over proposed capital increases in the rent ceiling.1 On August 2, *5841991, the owner filed a motion to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Perry v. SeraDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- Habib v. ThurstonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Robinson v. EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Ouriaghli v. MooreDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
3Cited by3 opinions
- Faggins v. FischerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- Mullin v. N Street Follies Ltd. PartnershipDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- Faggins v. FischerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004