Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Citation
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Parent Document
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-03-15
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
- Housing Authority v. Silva, 972 P.2d 952 (1999)
Full Text
665 chars— Anthony Silva appeals the judgment against him in an unlawful detainer action, contending that his landlord, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA), did not provide him with proper notice of his eviction and did not satisfy Seattle’s just cause eviction ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 22.206.160(C). Silva also contends that the SHA unlawfully discriminated against him by refusing to reasonably accommodate his disability. We find that the SHA satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of proper notice but did not comply with the ordinance’s just cause provision. Therefore, we conclude that Silva is entitled to remain in possession, and we reverse. FACTS