# Debruhl v. District of Columbia Hackers' License Appeal Board

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · March 9, 1978 · 384 A.2d 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635014

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul DEBRUHL, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HACKERS’ LICENSE APPEAL BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 9, 1978
- **Citations:** 384 A.2d 421; 1978 D.C. App. LEXIS 440
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harris
- **Judges:** Newman, Harris, Mack
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635014

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that jurisdiction exists under DCA-PA to hear petition for review of denial of license application on grounds similar to those asserted here

## Opinion text

HARRIS, Associate Judge;
I concur in the result and in the reasoning expressed in the majority opinion, with but one exception. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s belief that the provisions of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act (DCAPA) establish a basic dichotomy between adjudicatory proceedings and rulemaking proceedings, and that such a dichotomy provides the basis for determining whether a particular administrative proceeding is a contested case — and hence subject to judicial review.
I recognize that such a characterization was adopted by a majority of the court in Chevy Chase Citizens Association v. Council, D.C.App., 327 A.2d 310 (1974) (en banc), and that such a position is now binding upon us. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in Chevy Chase, supra, I *428 continue to find fault with such an analysis of the provisions of the DCAPA. See 327 A.2d at 320-21 . I am still of the opinion that the dichotomy the Act creates is between contested cases and noncontested cases.
While I thus express my disagreement with a small portion of the language utilized by the majority, that portion of the opinion is not central to our disposition of this ease, and I do not wish to belabor the point. Accordingly, I concur, and express this limited area of disagreement in a cursory fashion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635014. Public record. Not legal advice.