Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Citation
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Parent Document
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1977-11-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7891523/cole-v-harris/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (158)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
Full Text
1,152 charsOn January 28, 1975, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order against any further demolition. .On February 7, the TRO was expanded into a preliminary injunction. Severely castigating HUD for reaching an irrational decision *159and failing “to weigh the human values was created by Congress to protect,”8 the trial judge enjoined any further demolition or evictions and ordered HUD to (1) clean up the rubble around the site; (2) restore the undemolished buildings to a condition at least as decent, safe, and sanitary as that existing as of September 17, 1974; (3) permit all former tenants who had left Sky Tower subsequent to September 17,1974, to return to the restored buildings at HUD’s expense; and (4) provide security services adequate to prevent vandalism.9 The trial judge noted that these affirmative directives were necessary because “[ojnly by filling the buildings with qualified needy tenants can the project remain viable pending final determination;” otherwise “vandalism, empty apartments and continuing unsafe conditions would, as a practical mat-' ter, effectively accomplish demolition by a process of erosion.”10 it