Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)

Citation
Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Parent Document
Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Effective Date
1996-08-26

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text

813 chars
10
Petitioners present two reasons why we should overturn the Agency's decision: First, Petitioners were not aware of the extent to which Rusinov's condition limited his mobility; and second, Petitioners argue that, as a matter of law, they did not violate the FHA because they granted Rusinov's request when they increased the number of handicapped parking spaces. We reverse the Secretary's decision only if it is "not in accordance with law," "without observance of procedure required by law," or "unsupported by substantial evidence." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D), and (E); Jancik v. HUD, 44 F.3d 553, 555 (7th Cir.1995). We review the entire record, but we do not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir.1994).