holding evictions may only be executed by appropriate legal process, and not by landlord self- help
How later courts described this case
- holding evictions may only be executed by appropriate legal process, and not by landlord self- help
- where this court overruled prior decision and held that a tenant may bring civil action against landlord for wrongful eviction, court also held that its decision applied retroactively to parties in the litigation but not to evictions involving others that occurred before the date of decision
- holding evictions may only be executed by appropriate legal process not landlord self-help
- “[I]n this jurisdiction, the landlord’s common law right of self-help has been abrogated, and the legislatively created remedies for reacquiring possession are exclusive.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529 (1991)
Mendes was implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court in James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991), and
Abrogated in part by Davis v. Moore, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 104 (2001)
389 A.2d 781, 787 (D.C. 1978) (en banc), abrogated in part on other grounds by Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204, 230
Distinguished
Distinguished by Simpson v. Lee, 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 521 (1985)
Mendes v. Johnson, supra, 389 A.2d 781, that a landlord does not have the right to self-help, is inapplicable to commercial property which has been abandoned by the tenant.
The opinion
YEAGLEY, Associate Judge,
dissenting in part:
I concur in the decision of the en banc court on the merits, but am of the view that the decision should be given prospective effect only. See Great Northern Ry. v. Sunburst Co., 287 U.S. 358, 365 , 53 S.Ct. 145, 149 , 77 L.Ed. 360 (1932), to the effect that it is not a constitutional problem and “[t]he choice for any state may be determined by the juristic philosophy of the judges of her courts, their conceptions of law, its origin and nature.”