Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros case brief summary
37 F.3d 442
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs, community counsel and tenant, appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, housing department and secretary, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in plaintiffs' action against defendants for violations of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437d(k), 5 U.S.C.S. § 551 et seq., and 24 C.F.R. § 10.01. Defendants issued a due process determination without providing notice and opportunity to comment.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs, community counsel and tenant, maintained an action against defendants, housing department and secretary, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that defendants had violated 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437d(k), 5 U.S.C.S. § 551 et seq., and 24 C.F.R. § 10.1.
ARGUMENT:
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants determined that the Washington state court eviction procedures satisfied the basic elements of due process, thereby allowing state public housing authorities to evict tenants accused of criminal activity without first affording them an informal grievance hearing.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case.
HOLDING:
The court determined that plaintiffs had standing to bring the action because their interests in the terms and conditions of their tenancies fell within the zone of interests protected by the statutes it alleged had been violated.
ANALYSIS:
Section 10.1 required defendants to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking whenever it promulgated a rule. Defendant's determination in question was a substantive rule. Therefore, because it was promulgated in violation of defendants' own regulations, the rule was invalid.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, housing department and secretary, and remanded the case. In deciding that the Washington state eviction procedures satisfied the basic elements of due process, defendants promulgated a substantive rule. Because it did so without notice and an opportunity to comment, the rule was invalid. Plaintiffs, community counsel and tenant, had standing to bring the action.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
37 F.3d 442
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs, community counsel and tenant, appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, housing department and secretary, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in plaintiffs' action against defendants for violations of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437d(k), 5 U.S.C.S. § 551 et seq., and 24 C.F.R. § 10.01. Defendants issued a due process determination without providing notice and opportunity to comment.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs, community counsel and tenant, maintained an action against defendants, housing department and secretary, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that defendants had violated 42 U.S.C.S. § 1437d(k), 5 U.S.C.S. § 551 et seq., and 24 C.F.R. § 10.1.
ARGUMENT:
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants determined that the Washington state court eviction procedures satisfied the basic elements of due process, thereby allowing state public housing authorities to evict tenants accused of criminal activity without first affording them an informal grievance hearing.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case.
HOLDING:
The court determined that plaintiffs had standing to bring the action because their interests in the terms and conditions of their tenancies fell within the zone of interests protected by the statutes it alleged had been violated.
ANALYSIS:
Section 10.1 required defendants to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking whenever it promulgated a rule. Defendant's determination in question was a substantive rule. Therefore, because it was promulgated in violation of defendants' own regulations, the rule was invalid.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, housing department and secretary, and remanded the case. In deciding that the Washington state eviction procedures satisfied the basic elements of due process, defendants promulgated a substantive rule. Because it did so without notice and an opportunity to comment, the rule was invalid. Plaintiffs, community counsel and tenant, had standing to bring the action.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment