C Street Tenants v. Rental Housing Com'n

6 Citing cases

  1. Bufford v. D.C. Public Schools

    611 A.2d 519 (D.C. 1992)   Cited 8 times
    Finding no exemption from exhaustion requirement because circumstances were not "compelling" and plaintiff was not "blameless" for failure to use administrative remedies

    In nearly every situation, "administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial relief may be sought." C Street Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Comm'n, 552 A.2d 524, 525 (D.C. 1989) (quoting O'Neill v. Starobin, 364 A.2d 149, 153 (D.C. 1976) (citations omitted)). "This rule insures that the agency has an opportunity to develop a factual record and to apply its expertise to the issues."

  2. DANO RESOURCE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    566 A.2d 483 (D.C. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    Affirming the trial court's ruling that a contractor was subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement because it had failed to show that the appeals procedure was inadequate or otherwise futile

    [Also], were we to allow parties to circumvent agency procedures for appeal, the effectiveness of agency rules might be undermined." C Street Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Comm'n, 552 A.2d 524, 525 (D.C. 1989) (citing McKart, supra, 395 U.S. at 195, 89 S.Ct. at 1663). It is not unusual for parties to seek to circumvent the exhaustion doctrine, see, e.g., Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414, 415, 421-22 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ("attempt to avoid the exhaustion requirement by styling the case as an action to 'enforce' the hearing officer's decision"), and such efforts are sometimes successful.

  3. Joyce v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Com'n

    741 A.2d 24 (D.C. 1999)

    Regular mail did not fulfill that obligation. The "section" referred to (§ 45-2526) sets forth the hearing procedures by which claims of illegal rent are adjudicated, see C Street Tenants v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 552 A.2d 524, 525 (D.C. 1989).See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth ed. 1979) (defining "certified mail" as a "[f]orm of mail similar to registered mail by which sender may require return receipt from addressee").

  4. Gilmore v. Board of Trustees of the Univ

    695 A.2d 1164 (D.C. 1997)   Cited 4 times
    Noting "the limited scope of review of RIF determinations"

    "[A]dministrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial relief may be sought." C Street Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 552 A.2d 524, 525 (D.C. 1989) (quoting O' Neill v. Starobin, 364 A.2d 149, 153 (D.C. 1976)). However, "the exhaustion requirement is not in general jurisdictional in nature, but rather must be applied in accord with its purposes."

  5. Tenants of 1255 N.H. Ave. v. D.C. Rental

    647 A.2d 70 (D.C. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    If, on the other hand, the petition is viewed as seeking review of the Rent Administrator's decision of May 22, 1992, then, according to HHLP, this court lacks authority to entertain it because that decision was not first appealed to the Commission. See C Street Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 552 A.2d 524, 525 (D.C. 1989). Although HHLP has focused on the merits before advancing its jurisdictional contentions, we address the jurisdictional issues first.

  6. Capitol Hill Hosp. v. Dist. of Columbia

    600 A.2d 793 (D.C. 1991)   Cited 13 times
    Acknowledging that we have authority, pursuant to the All Writs Act, to issue orders preserving the status quo until administrative review has been completed because we have reviewing authority over all contested cases

    We believe the Council must have intended the same review process for all Certificate of Need issues, including exhaustion of administrative remedies followed by direct review of contested cases by this court. See McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 194, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) (agency should have first chance to apply its expertise); Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 566 A.2d 483, 485 (D.C. 1989) (same); Bender v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 562 A.2d 1205, 1208 (D.C. 1989) (same); C Street Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 552 A.2d 524, 525 (D.C. 1989) (same); K. DAVIS, 4 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 26:1 (2d ed. 1983). We conclude, therefore, that the same administrative appeal and review process should apply whether a health care facility seeks a Certificate or attempts to close a service without a Certificate (involving no capital expenditures).