Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 386 U.S. 670 (1967)

Citation: Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 386 U.S. 670 (1967)
Parent Document: Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 386 U.S. 670 (1967)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1967-06-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107416/thorpe-v-housing-authority-of-durham/ ↗

Full Text

1,346 chars

Here, the Superior Court found that petitioner had not been evicted because she had engaged in efforts to organize the tenants of the housing project or because she had been elected president of the Parents’ Club. On appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court, petitioner contended that the finding was. erroneous. The State Supreme Court did not pass on the finding of the Superior Court since it concluded that the Housing Authority could terminate the lease and evict petitioner for any reason.* As I have said, it is argued that the circular of the Department of Housing and Urban Development *681answers petitioner’s claim that she was entitled to an administrative hearing before her lease was terminated. But petitioner has already had a hearing in the state courts. And the status of the circular, whether a regulation or only a press release, is uncertain, an uncertainty which the Court does not remove. Vacating and remanding “for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in the light of the . . . circular” therefore furnishes no guidelines for the state courts on remand, and does not dispose of . the basic issue presented. I would vacate and remand to the state courts to determine the precise reason why petitioner was evicted and whether that reason was within the permissible range for state action against the individual.

Other Sections in This Document (71)

Full Text