Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969)

Citation: Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969)
Parent Document: Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1969-02-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107814/thorpe-v-housing-authority-of-durham/ ↗

Full Text

1,076 chars

Despite the incorporation of the February 7 circular into the Management Manual in October 1967, the Housing Authority contends that on its face the circular purports to be only advisory. The Authority places particular emphasis on the circular’s precatory statement that HUD “believes” that its notification procedure should be followed. In addition to overlooking the significance of the subsequent incorporation of the circular into the Management Manual, the Authority’s argument is based upon a simple misconstruction of the language actually used. The import of that language, which characterizes the new notification procedure as “essential,” becomes apparent when the February 7 circular is contrasted with the one it superseded. The earlier circular, issued on May 31, 1966, stated: “[W]e strongly urge, as a matter of good social policy, that Local Authorities in a *276private conference inform any tenants who are given . . . [termination] notices of the reasons for this action.” 21 (Emphasis added.) This circular was not incorporated into the Management Manual.

Other Sections in This Document (147)

Full Text