Section 101
- Citation
- Section 101
- Parent Document
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1979-04-17
Other Sections in This Document (175)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
- Section 101
Full Text
633 charsIn addition to their Relocation Act claims, several tenants alleged in the complaint that HUD should not have applied their security deposits to offset rent deficiencies. The tenants contended that HUD had breached an implied warranty of habitability for the relevant period, thereby relieving them of any obligation to pay rent. Deciding the issue under federal law, the District Court held that no such warranty could be implied in the tenants’ leases. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 555 F. 2d, at 170-171. The tenants have not challenged this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision, and we therefore do not consider the issue. 6