Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Company

Decision Date03 December 1969
Docket NumberNo. 22696.,22696.
Citation136 US App. DC 403,420 F.2d 245
PartiesArstine GADDIS, Petitioner, v. DIXIE REALTY COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Brian Michael Olmstead, Nahant, Mass., was on the brief for petitioner.

Mr. Herman Miller, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for respondent.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge, in Chambers.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Gaddis rented a house from the respondent which was subsequently condemned as dangerous to the health and safety of its occupants. Unable to obtain more suitable quarters, petitioner and her family remained in possession, but she eventually stopped paying her monthly rent of $190. Respondent sued for eviction. Petitioner defended on several grounds: She claimed respondent was barred from maintaining the suit by the condemnation proceedings, that respondent knowingly and fraudulently rented the facilities with full knowledge that the house was uninhabitable and infested with vermin, and that the rental contract was thus unconscionable and void. Moreover, petitioner made a claim against the respondent by way of set-off against the rent allegedly due on grounds that petitioner and her family suffered damages because of the unfit condition of the house.

Respondent obtained a directed verdict in the Court of General Sessions, and petitioner appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, however, petitioner surrendered possession of the house and moved into public housing. Respondent in turn surrendered its claim for money judgment on the past rent due and asked the court to dismiss the appeal on grounds of mootness. The court found that petitioner vacated the house on her own volition and dismissed the appeal as moot, although the court did observe that the trial court was undoubtedly in error in ignoring the flagrant housing violation of the kind condemned in Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (D.C.C.A.1968). See, Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Company, 248 A.2d 820, 821 (D.C. C.A.1969).

Petitioner seeks review on the ground that the action of dismissing the appeal leaves in effect the underlying judgment of the Court of General Sessions, and that this will be res judicata of her action for damages.

We do not think it appropriate to grant leave to appeal for the purpose of exploring the issues tendered by petitioner as to mootness and res judicata. We do think it appropriate to exercise our certiorari-type jurisdiction in order to bring to the attention of the D.C. Court of Appeals the appellate procedure prescribed for the federal courts since the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 20 d2 Agosto d2 2019
    ...discretion to raise the issue sua sponte , cf. Igonia v. Califano , 568 F.2d 1383, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ; Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co. , 420 F.2d 245, 247 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (per curiam). Remand without vacatur is appropriate here.We conclude that the NCUA might be able to offer a satisfactory......
  • Robinson v. Diamond Housing Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 3 d1 Abril d1 1972
    ...of possession ends the case or controversy when, as here, the landlord makes no claim for back rent. See Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., 136 U.S.App.D.C. 403, 420 F.2d 245 (1969). While it is true that Mrs. Robinson's departure under the circumstances described by Diamond might in some sense be......
  • Masszonia v. Washington
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 27 d2 Fevereiro d2 1973
    ...U.S.App.D.C. 339, 433 F.2d 497 (1970), reviewed on the merits, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 17, 463 F.2d 853 (1972); cf. Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., 136 U.S.App.D.C. 403, 420 F.2d 245 (1969), but from the impossibility, under the circumstances described in the majority opinion, of their ever regaining ......
  • Atkins v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 5 d5 Novembro d5 1971
    ...v. Habib, D.C.App., 255 A.2d 504 (1969); Gaddis v. Dixie Realty Co., D.C.App., 248 A.2d 820, remanded on other grounds, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 403, 420 F.2d 245 (1969); Price v. Wilson, D.C.Mun. App., 32 A.2d 109 (1943). We see no reason why this same rule of mootness should not apply to a case s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT