Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P., 890 A.2d 249 (2006)

Citation
Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P., 890 A.2d 249 (2006)
Parent Document
Scarborough v. Winn Residential L.L.P., 890 A.2d 249 (2006)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2006-01-12

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text

1,002 chars
535 U.S. 125, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002), the Supreme Court interpreted the authority conferred by the anticrime provision — all but identical to 42 U.S.C. § 1437f (d)(l)(B)(iii), applicable here — that governs leases administered by HUD-assisted public housing agencies. The issue there was whether the required lease provisions allow a housing authority to evict a tenant for criminal activity (there drug possession) regardless of whether the tenant knew or had reason to know of the activity or for any reason was unable to control it. The Court rejected the argument that such knowledge or control is necessary to permit eviction. It focused on the statutory language providing that “any” criminal activity posing the threatened danger to the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of other tenants is cause for lease termination, observing that “the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.’ ” Id. at 131, 122 S.Ct. 1230. 6