cogent analysis in District of Columbia

2005See also Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 320-21 (D.C.1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (recognizing, as a matter of "policy," the existence in our law of "various liability-limiting considerations which relieve the defendant of liability for harm he actually caused where the chain of events appears highly extraordinary in retrospect"). [7] Among courts rejecting claims of negligent distribution of firearms similar to the plaintiffs', the New York Court of Appeals in Hamilton v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 , 727 N.Y.S.2d 7 , 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001), leav

2005See also Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 320-21 (D.C.1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (recognizing, as a matter of "policy," the existence in our law of "various liability-limiting considerations which relieve the defendant of liability for harm he actually caused where the chain of events appears highly extraordinary in retrospect"). [7] Among courts rejecting claims of negligent distribution of firearms similar to the plaintiffs', the New York Court of Appeals in Hamilton v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 , 727 N.Y.S.2d 7 , 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001), leav

2005See also Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 320-21 (D.C.1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (recognizing, as a matter of “policy,” the existence in our law of “various liability-limiting considerations which reheve the defendant of liability for harm he actually caused where the chain of events appears highly extraordinary in retrospect”). 7 Among courts rejecting claims of negligent distribution of firearms similar to the plaintiffs’, the New York Court of Appeals in Hamilton v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 , 727 N.Y.S.2d 7 , 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001), leave t

2005See also Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 320-21 (D.C.1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (recognizing, as a matter of "policy," the existence in our law of "various liability-limiting considerations which relieve the defendant of liability for harm he actually caused where the chain of events appears highly extraordinary in retrospect"). [7] Among courts rejecting claims of negligent distribution of firearms similar to the plaintiffs', the New York Court of Appeals in Hamilton v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222 , 727 N.Y.S.2d 7 , 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001), leav

2002In short, the rationale and interpretation of the Act that is reflected in the Mayor’s Agent’s decision is neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with the Act; hence, we owe deference to the agency’s interpretation See Reneau, supra, 676 A.2d at 917 (“Although the decision is not a model of clarity, a close reading reveals that it contains a cogent analysis of the record evidence, flows rationally from the findings of fact, and contains no erroneous interpretations of law.”). 8 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the agency. 1 .

2002In short, the rationale and interpretation of the Act that is reflected in the Mayor’s Agent’s decision is neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with the Act; hence, we owe deference to the agency’s interpretation See Reneau, supra, 676 A.2d at 917 (“Although the decision is not a model of clarity, a close reading reveals that it contains a cogent analysis of the record evidence, flows rationally from the findings of fact, and contains no erroneous interpretations of law.”). 8 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the agency. 1 .

1981See Wright, supra at 585-87 ; note 4 supra. This heavy burden is justified by the fact that when counsel performs these functions — a comprehensive client interview, investigation, discovery from the government, and preparation of the client for trial — the court ordinarily can perceive a cogent defense strategy against which the alleged lapse can be measured.

1981See Wright, supra at 585-87 ; note 4 supra. This heavy burden is justified by the fact that when counsel performs these functions—a comprehensive client interview, investigation, discovery from the government, and preparation of the client for trial—the court ordinarily can perceive a cogent defense strategy against which the alleged lapse can be measured.