====== Request public records from a District of Columbia public body ====== **District of Columbia · How do I request public records?** · state model checked by Claude · quality 1.00 //Generated by [[https://github.com/alibama/lexflow|lexflow]] from the state statutes (open-us-law, government publisher text) and checked by Claude: every quoted phrase was matched word for word against the statute text, and the process passed the BPMN/DMN schemas, bpmnlint and a Petri-net soundness check. Information, not legal advice.// **Governing law:** [[https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/2-532|D.C. Code § 2-532]] — Right of access to public records; allowable costs; time limits. ===== Process map ===== A person asks a D.C. public body for a public record 'respond' stands for the whole answer under § 2-532(c)(1): the determination together with making the record accessible or notifying the requester of the denial and its reasons. It carries the 15-working-day timer, and a miss routes to deemed_denied (consequence 'deemed-denial', § 2-532(e)). The compiler draws a decision step as a business-rule task without a message flow, so the answer reaches the requester through release_segregable (written explanation, segregable part) or make_accessible (the record). Those follow-up acts, and the fee step before release, carry no timer of their own: the model treats the timed answer as the act the time limit governs. The drawn timer starts when 'respond' starts, just after the extension choice, rather than at receipt itself. An extension under § 2-532(d)(1) takes effect by written notice (notify_extension, when extension_taken). The extended answer is a separate step, respond_extended, timed at 25 working days from receipt (15 plus at most 10); the expected date in the notice may be earlier, and the model does not draw that date. The drawn timer of respond_extended starts after the notice, so it can run somewhat past 25 working days from receipt. The statute does not say when the extension notice must be sent; because it extends 'the time limits', it presumably has to go out before the 15 working days end. A deemed denial is also deemed exhaustion of administrative remedies (§ 2-532(e)): that status is what lets the requester sue directly (§ 2-537(a)(1)) instead of petitioning the Mayor. deemed_denial_not_challenged is the end for a requester who does neither. A written withholding (after release_segregable), a deemed denial, a Mayor denial and a Mayor who does not decide in time all lead to the one sue_superior_court step (join 'any'). requester_sues is the requester's choice and is supplied with the case. The statute gives the right to sue after a deemed denial, after the Mayor denies or does not decide in time (§ 2-537(a)(1)), and after a written withholding only for records of the Council or the Attorney General (§ 2-537(a-1), (a-2)), which skip the Mayor; the model does not enforce these limits. A suit to enforce the Mayor's disclosure order (§ 2-537(a)(2)) is a separate step, sue_to_compel. § 2-537(a)(1) gives a missed Mayor deadline the same remedy as a denial but does not call it a deemed denial, so the deadline's consequence is 'unstated' and the timer leads to mayor_no_decision. The drawn timer is interrupting, which ends the Mayor's review; the text does not say that the Mayor loses the power to decide late, and a late decision is not modelled. release_segregable follows every written withholding: § 2-534(b) applies to any withheld record, and when the whole record is exempt there is no segregable portion to provide. Fees for a partial release (§ 2-532(b)) are not drawn on that branch. Advance payment may be required only if the requester previously failed to pay on time or the fee will exceed $250 (§ 2-532(b-3)); otherwise release does not wait for payment. Review costs exclude legal or policy analysis (b-2); 'reasonable efforts' caps reprogramming or reformatting at 8 hours of personnel time (f)(1). These limits are not separate steps. Petitioning the Mayor is not available for records of the Council (§ 2-537(a-1)) or the Attorney General (a-2) ('Except as provided in subsections (a-1) and (a-2)'); the model leaves requester_petitions_mayor to the case and does not enforce this. Body-worn camera recordings of the Metropolitan Police Department have 25 working days plus up to 15 more in unusual circumstances, including the inability to procure a redaction vendor, and may only be requested from MPD (§ 2-532(c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(2)(C)). Not modelled separately. Where and how to file (which office, which form) is set by each public body's rules issued after notice and comment under § 2-532(a); the statute text does not say. No deadline for petitioning the Mayor or for suing is stated in these sections. In court the burden is on the agency, review is de novo and records may be examined in camera (§ 2-537(b)); a prevailing requester may recover fees (c); an arbitrary or capricious violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $100 (§ 2-537(d)). Not modelled as steps. start submit_request consider_extension notify_extension respond respond_deadline respond_extended respond_extended_deadline deemed_denied release_segregable assess_fees make_accessible sue_superior_court sue_to_compel record_provided deemed_denial_not_challenged withholding_not_appealed disclosure_ordered mayor_denial_not_challenged court_decides release_segregable_join assess_fees_join sue_superior_court_join mayor_denial_not_challenged_join court_decides_join consider_extension_gw respond_gw respond_extended_gw release_segregable_gw deemed_denied_gw deemed_denied_merge petition_mayor mayor_review mayor_review_deadline mayor_no_decision order_disclosure petition_mayor_join mayor_review_gw mayor_no_decision_gw order_disclosure_gw D.C. Code § 2-532(a): “Any person has a right to inspect, and at his or her discretion, to copy any public record of a public body” Any person has a right to inspect, and at his or her discretion, to copy any public record of a public body sf7 D.C. Code § 2-532(c)(1): “upon request reasonably describing any public record” upon request reasonably describing any public record sf7 sf8 D.C. Code § 2-532(d)(1): “In unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in subsection (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section may be extended” In unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in subsection (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section may be extended extension_grounds sf8 sf9 D.C. Code § 2-532(d)(1): “may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for extension and expected date for determination” may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for extension and expected date for determination sf10 sf12 D.C. Code § 2-532(c)(1): “shall within 15 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor” shall within 15 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor response_type sf11 sf13 D.C. Code § 2-532(e): “Any failure on the part of a public body to comply with a request under subsection (a) of this section within the time provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall be deemed a denial of the request” Any failure on the part of a public body to comply with a request under subsection (a) of this section within the time provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall be deemed a denial of the request sf42 P15D D.C. Code § 2-532(d)(1): “Such extension shall not exceed 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) for records requested under subsection (c)(1) of this section” Such extension shall not exceed 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) for records requested under subsection (c)(1) of this section response_type sf12 sf16 D.C. Code § 2-532(e): “Any failure on the part of a public body to comply with a request under subsection (a) of this section within the time provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall be deemed a denial of the request” Any failure on the part of a public body to comply with a request under subsection (a) of this section within the time provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall be deemed a denial of the request sf43 P25D D.C. Code § 2-532(e): “shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request” shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request sf45 sf24 D.C. Code § 2-534(b): “Any reasonably segregable portion of a public record shall be provided to any person requesting the record after deletion of those portions which may be withheld from disclosure” Any reasonably segregable portion of a public record shall be provided to any person requesting the record after deletion of those portions which may be withheld from disclosure sf1 sf20 D.C. Code § 2-532(b): “A public body may establish and collect fees not to exceed the actual cost of searching for, reviewing, redacting, and making copies of records.” A public body may establish and collect fees not to exceed the actual cost of searching for, reviewing, redacting, and making copies of records. fee_basis sf2 sf19 D.C. Code § 2-532(a-1): “a public body shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person” a public body shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person sf19 sf39 D.C. Code § 2-537(a): “any person denied the right to inspect a public record of a public body may petition the Mayor” any person denied the right to inspect a public record of a public body may petition the Mayor sf3 sf28 D.C. Code § 2-537(a): “Such determination shall be made in writing with a statement of reasons therefor in writing within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the submission of the petition” Such determination shall be made in writing with a statement of reasons therefor in writing within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the submission of the petition mayor_ruling sf28 sf29 D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(1): “does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection” does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection sf44 P10D D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(1): “does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection” does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection sf44 sf33 D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(2): “he shall order the public body to disclose the record immediately” he shall order the public body to disclose the record immediately sf30 sf36 D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(1): “the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia” the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia sf4 sf40 D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(2): “If the public body continues to withhold the record, the person seeking disclosure may bring suit” If the public body continues to withhold the record, the person seeking disclosure may bring suit sf37 sf41 D.C. Code § 2-532(a-1): “provided that the person shall pay the costs of reproducing the record in that form or format” provided that the person shall pay the costs of reproducing the record in that form or format sf39 D.C. Code § 2-532(e): “unless such person chooses to petition the Mayor” unless such person chooses to petition the Mayor sf27 D.C. Code § 2-534(b): “the extent of the deletion shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made available or published” the extent of the deletion shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made available or published sf23 D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(2): “disclose the record immediately” disclose the record immediately sf38 D.C. Code § 2-537(a)(1): “the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia” the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia sf5 D.C. Code § 2-537(b): “the Superior Court for the District of Columbia may enjoin the public body from withholding records and order the production of any records improperly withheld from the person seeking disclosure” the Superior Court for the District of Columbia may enjoin the public body from withholding records and order the production of any records improperly withheld from the person seeking disclosure sf6 sf14 sf17 sf1 sf15 sf18 sf2 sf21 sf25 sf3 sf22 sf26 sf31 sf34 sf4 sf32 sf35 sf5 sf40 sf41 sf6 sf9 sf10 sf11 sf13 sf14 sf15 sf16 sf17 sf18 sf20 sf21 sf22 sf23 sf24 sf25 sf26 sf27 sf29 sf30 sf31 sf32 sf33 sf34 sf35 sf36 sf37 sf38 sf42 sf43 sf45 extension_taken record_withheld record_released record_withheld record_released requester_petitions_mayor requester_sues requester_petitions_mayor requester_sues record_may_not_be_withheld requester_sues requester_sues public_body_continues_withholding ===== Steps and the words they come from ===== - **Request record, reasonably describing it** — Requester · //right// (§ 2-532%%(c)%%(1)) \\ “//upon request reasonably describing any public record//” - **Decide whether to extend the time limit** — D.C. public body · //permission// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//In unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in subsection %%(c)%%(1) and %%(c)%%(2) of this section may be extended//” - **Send written notice of reasons and expected date** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//may be extended by written notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for extension and expected date for determination//” - **Grant access or give written reasons for denial** — D.C. public body · within 15 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-532%%(c)%%(1)) \\ “//shall within 15 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request either make the requested public record accessible or notify the person making such request of its determination not to make the requested public record or any part thereof accessible and the reasons therefor//” - **Grant access or give reasons by extended date** — D.C. public body · within 25 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-532(d)(1)) \\ “//Such extension shall not exceed 10 days (except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) for records requested under subsection %%(c)%%(1) of this section//” - **Request deemed denied** — D.C. public body (§ 2-532(e)) \\ “//shall be deemed a denial of the request, and the person making such request shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request//” - **Provide segregable portion; mark and explain deletions** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-534(b)) \\ “//Any reasonably segregable portion of a public record shall be provided to any person requesting the record after deletion of those portions which may be withheld from disclosure//” - **Set fees within the statutory limits** — D.C. public body · //permission// (§ 2-532(b)) \\ “//A public body may establish and collect fees not to exceed the actual cost of searching for, reviewing, redacting, and making copies of records.//” - **Provide record in the requested format** — D.C. public body · //obligation// (§ 2-532(a-1)) \\ “//a public body shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person//” - **Petition the Mayor to review the denial** — Requester · //right// (§ 2-537(a)) \\ “//any person denied the right to inspect a public record of a public body may petition the Mayor//” - **Decide in writing whether record may be withheld** — Mayor (FOIA appeals) · within 10 business days · //obligation// (§ 2-537(a)) \\ “//Such determination shall be made in writing with a statement of reasons therefor in writing within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) of the submission of the petition//” - **Mayor did not decide in time** — Mayor (FOIA appeals) (§ 2-537(a)(1)) \\ “//does not make a determination within the time limits provided in this subsection//” - **Order public body to disclose immediately** — Mayor (FOIA appeals) · //obligation// (§ 2-537(a)(2)) \\ “//he shall order the public body to disclose the record immediately//” - **Sue in D.C. Superior Court** — Requester · //right// (§ 2-537(a)(1)) \\ “//the person seeking disclosure may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia//” - **Sue to compel production of the record** — Requester · //right// (§ 2-537(a)(2)) \\ “//If the public body continues to withhold the record, the person seeking disclosure may bring suit//” ===== Does the public body extend the time to decide? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Public body chooses to extend (the statute permits, does not require) ^ Request needs search and review of a voluminous amount of separate records ^ Consultation needed with another public body or among components ^ → Extension ^ → Time limit extended ^ Source ^ | false | - | - | No extension: determine within 15 working days of receipt | false | § 2-532(d)(1) | | true | true | - | Written notice with reasons and expected date; at most 10 more working days | true | § 2-532(d)(2)(A) | | true | false | true | Written notice with reasons and expected date; at most 10 more working days | true | § 2-532(d)(2)(B) | | true | false | false | No extension: no unusual circumstances | false | § 2-532(d)(2) | ===== How does the public body answer the request? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Whole record exempt under § 2-534 ^ Part of the record exempt under § 2-534 ^ → Response ^ → Record withheld in whole or part ^ → Whole record made accessible ^ Source ^ | true | - | Deny access in writing with reasons | true | false | § 2-532(c)(1) | | false | true | Withhold the exempt part with reasons; provide the segregable rest | true | false | § 2-534(b) | | false | false | Make the requested record accessible | false | true | § 2-532(c)(1) | ===== What does the Mayor decide on the petition? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Record may be withheld from public inspection ^ → Ruling ^ → Disclosure ordered ^ Source ^ | true | Petition denied in writing with reasons; requester may sue | false | § 2-537(a)(1) | | false | Record may not be withheld: disclose immediately | true | § 2-537(a)(2) | ===== Which costs may the public body charge? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Furnishing the record primarily benefits the general public ^ Records requested for commercial use ^ Educational or non-commercial scientific institution, or news media ^ → Chargeable costs ^ Source ^ | true | - | - | Fee may be waived or reduced | § 2-532(b) | | false | true | - | Search, duplication and review | § 2-532(b-1)(1) | | false | false | true | Duplication only | § 2-532(b-1)(2) | | false | false | false | Search and duplication | § 2-532(b-1)(3) | ===== What the text leaves open ===== * 'respond' stands for the whole answer under § 2-532%%(c)%%(1): the determination together with making the record accessible or notifying the requester of the denial and its reasons. It carries the 15-working-day timer, and a miss routes to deemed_denied (consequence 'deemed-denial', § 2-532(e)). The compiler draws a decision step as a business-rule task without a message flow, so the answer reaches the requester through release_segregable (written explanation, segregable part) or make_accessible (the record). Those follow-up acts, and the fee step before release, carry no timer of their own: the model treats the timed answer as the act the time limit governs. The drawn timer starts when 'respond' starts, just after the extension choice, rather than at receipt itself. * An extension under § 2-532(d)(1) takes effect by written notice (notify_extension, when extension_taken). The extended answer is a separate step, respond_extended, timed at 25 working days from receipt (15 plus at most 10); the expected date in the notice may be earlier, and the model does not draw that date. The drawn timer of respond_extended starts after the notice, so it can run somewhat past 25 working days from receipt. The statute does not say when the extension notice must be sent; because it extends 'the time limits', it presumably has to go out before the 15 working days end. * A deemed denial is also deemed exhaustion of administrative remedies (§ 2-532(e)): that status is what lets the requester sue directly (§ 2-537(a)(1)) instead of petitioning the Mayor. deemed_denial_not_challenged is the end for a requester who does neither. * A written withholding (after release_segregable), a deemed denial, a Mayor denial and a Mayor who does not decide in time all lead to the one sue_superior_court step (join 'any'). requester_sues is the requester's choice and is supplied with the case. The statute gives the right to sue after a deemed denial, after the Mayor denies or does not decide in time (§ 2-537(a)(1)), and after a written withholding only for records of the Council or the Attorney General (§ 2-537(a-1), (a-2)), which skip the Mayor; the model does not enforce these limits. A suit to enforce the Mayor's disclosure order (§ 2-537(a)(2)) is a separate step, sue_to_compel. * § 2-537(a)(1) gives a missed Mayor deadline the same remedy as a denial but does not call it a deemed denial, so the deadline's consequence is 'unstated' and the timer leads to mayor_no_decision. The drawn timer is interrupting, which ends the Mayor's review; the text does not say that the Mayor loses the power to decide late, and a late decision is not modelled. * release_segregable follows every written withholding: § 2-534(b) applies to any withheld record, and when the whole record is exempt there is no segregable portion to provide. Fees for a partial release (§ 2-532(b)) are not drawn on that branch. * Advance payment may be required only if the requester previously failed to pay on time or the fee will exceed $250 (§ 2-532(b-3)); otherwise release does not wait for payment. Review costs exclude legal or policy analysis (b-2); 'reasonable efforts' caps reprogramming or reformatting at 8 hours of personnel time (f)(1). These limits are not separate steps. * Petitioning the Mayor is not available for records of the Council (§ 2-537(a-1)) or the Attorney General (a-2) ('Except as provided in subsections (a-1) and (a-2)'); the model leaves requester_petitions_mayor to the case and does not enforce this. * Body-worn camera recordings of the Metropolitan Police Department have 25 working days plus up to 15 more in unusual circumstances, including the inability to procure a redaction vendor, and may only be requested from MPD (§ 2-532%%(c)%%(2), (d)(1), (d)(2)%%(C)%%). Not modelled separately. * Where and how to file (which office, which form) is set by each public body's rules issued after notice and comment under § 2-532(a); the statute text does not say. * No deadline for petitioning the Mayor or for suing is stated in these sections. * In court the burden is on the agency, review is de novo and records may be examined in camera (§ 2-537(b)); a prevailing requester may recover fees %%(c)%%; an arbitrary or capricious violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $100 (§ 2-537(d)). Not modelled as steps. ===== Court decisions citing this law ===== //Found with [[https://www.courtlistener.com|CourtListener]] (Free Law Project): opinions in the state's appellate courts whose text cites these sections. Listed for research; not every citing case construes the section.// * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3184301/john-doe-no-1-v-susan-l-burke/|JOHN DOE NO. 1 v. SUSAN L. BURKE]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2016, 133 A.3d 569; 44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1513; 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 49; 2016 WL 932799) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5145601/fraternal-order-of-police-v-district-of-columbia/|Fraternal Order of Police v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2012, 52 A.3d 822; 2012 WL 3601097; 2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 340) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2790880/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-labor-committee-v-district-of/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015, 113 A.3d 195; 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 108; 2015 WL 1482557) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2779015/david-p-frankel-v-district-of-columbia-office-for-planning-and-economic/|David P. Frankel v. District of Columbia Office for Planning and Economic Development]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015, 110 A.3d 553; 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 29; 2015 WL 862828) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4423072/illinois-farmers-insurance-co-v-hagenberg/|Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Hagenberg]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2017, 167 A.3d 1218; 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 266) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1908982/wemhoff-v-district-of-columbia/|Wemhoff v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2005, 887 A.2d 1004; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 645; 2005 WL 3434072) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1980188/gause-v-united-states/|Gause v. United States]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008, 959 A.2d 671; 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 432; 2008 WL 4735170) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2443827/riley-v-fenty/|Riley v. Fenty]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010, 7 A.3d 1014; 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 668; 2010 WL 4537124) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2443827/riley-v-fenty/|Riley v. Fenty]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010, 7 A.3d 1014; 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 668; 2010 WL 4537124) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2310858/united-states-v-white/|United States v. White]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997, 689 A.2d 535; 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 10; 1997 WL 50544) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654933/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police-labor-committee-v-the/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Labor Committee v. The District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013, 79 A.3d 347; 2013 WL 6227788; 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 779) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2404883/brooks-v-district-of-columbia-housing-authority/|Brooks v. District of Columbia Housing Authority]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010, 999 A.2d 134; 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 405; 2010 WL 2850279) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1978818/office-of-the-peoples-counsel-v-public-service-commission/|Office of the People's Counsel v. Public Service Commission]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008, 955 A.2d 169; 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 439; 2008 WL 3925283) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147078/district-of-columbia-v-fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police/|District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013, 75 A.3d 259; 2013 WL 5036148; 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 602) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144651/padou-v-district-of-columbia/|Padou v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011, 29 A.3d 973; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 607; 2011 WL 4975262) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144651/padou-v-district-of-columbia/|Padou v. District of Columbia]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011, 29 A.3d 973; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 607; 2011 WL 4975262) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2959659/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police-labor-committee-v-district/|FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015, 124 A.3d 69; 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 447; 204 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3349; 2015 WL 5474117) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654903/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-labor-committee-v-district-of/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbi]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014, 82 A.3d 803; 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 2; 2014 WL 23649) — cites § 2-534 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654903/fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-labor-committee-v-district-of/|Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Labor Committee v. District of Columbi]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014, 82 A.3d 803; 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 2; 2014 WL 23649) — cites § 2-537 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5144785/district-of-columbia-v-fraternal-order-of-police-metropolitan-police-labor/|District of Columbia v. Fraternal Order of Police Metropolitan Police Labor Committee]] (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011, 33 A.3d 332; 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 692; 2011 WL 6415259) — cites § 2-534 ===== Checks ===== * Quotes checked word for word: 38 (0 not exact) * BPMN / DMN schema errors: 0 / 0; bpmnlint errors: 0 * Petri nets sound: 1 of 1 * Sections used: 2-532, 2-537, 2-534 ===== Local answers ===== * [[lexflow:dc:washington_dc:records|City of Washington DC]] ← [[lexflow:dc|District of Columbia]] · [[lexflow:start|lexflow models]]