# Mendes v. Johnson

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 13, 1978 · 389 A.2d 781

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711230

## Case

- **Full name:** Fortunato J. MENDES, Appellant, v. Montina JOHNSON, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 13, 1978
- **Citations:** 389 A.2d 781; 1978 D.C. App. LEXIS 544
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Gallagher
- **Judges:** Newman, Kelly, Fickling, Kern, Gallagher, Nebeker, Yeagley, Harris, MacK, Ferren
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711230

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding evictions may only be executed by appropriate legal process, and not by landlord self- help
- holding evictions may only be executed by appropriate legal process not landlord self-help

## Opinion text

GALLAGHER, Associate Judge,
with whom NEBEKER, Associate Judge, joins in part, and with whom YEAGLEY, Associate Judge, joins, concurring and dissenting:
I agree that in this day and age the use of self-help in this jurisdiction rather than resort to the court to evict a tenant should be relegated to the past.
I think, however, that this new rule of law should be given prospective effect. After all, until today the decision in Snitman v. Goodman, D.C.Mun.App., 118 A.2d 394 (1955), permitted self-help. It is the holding of today’s decision that Snitman v. Goodman is overruled.
I suppose one can rationalize various sorts of academic distinctions on prospective versus retroactive effect that may seem rather impressive but, for me, in the end it gets down to simple equity. Why should this court approve a penalty laid upon a litigant whose act was authorized by an extant decision of this court — a decision which must now be overruled in deciding this case? One might consider this court more nearly responsible than the litigant. In a case quite similar in principle we concluded the decision should be given prospective effect. Kelly Adjustment Co. v. Boyd, D.C.App., 342 A.2d 361 (1975).
It seems to me the court, in the end, should here look predominantly to whether it is equitable to penalize a defendant rather than to whether a plaintiff should be rewarded. That is certainly my concept of our jurisprudence in such circumstances and I would scarcely consider there is anything original about the viewpoint. All things considered, I favor prospective application. To this extent, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711230. Public record. Not legal advice.