Legal Opinion · Dissent

Killingham v. Wilshire Investments Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 30, 1999No. 97-CV-457Published

1DissentRuiz, Associate Judge

I would reverse and remand for further proceedings because, on the present record, I cannot conclude that Ms. Killing-ham, the tenant, was not harmed by the dismissal of her claim for housing code violations resulting from the late amendment to the landlord’s complaint permitted by the trial court and by the trial court’s refusal to consider the tenant’s claim that, as a disabled person, she was unlawfully denied access to the apartment building’s recreational pool area.

1. The Dismissed Claim of Housing Code Violations.

The landlord was permitted to amend its complaint so as to exclude a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. District of Columbia v. ShannonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. Shin v. Portals Confederation Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. Guevara v. ReedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Blake Construction Co. v. Alliance Plumbing & Heating Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978

1 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