Section 8
- Citation
- Section 8
- Parent Document
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2011-02-25
Other Sections in This Document (141)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
Full Text
1,156 charsThe district court erred, however, when it required Defendants to execute HAP contracts with the Oakland Housing Authority. The court incorrectly inverted the burden of proof by examining whether the proposed injunction would cause irreparable harm to Defendants. The court wrote: “Since Defendant could identify no specific terms in the HAP contract which were objectionable, the Court finds unpersuasive his asserted irreparable injury from being required to comply with the law and enter into HAP contracts with the Oakland Housing Authority.” This conclusion fails to recognize that those seeking injunctive relief, not those opposing that relief, are responsible for showing irreparable injury. See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). By examining the legally irrelevant question of whether Defendants were likely to suffer harm if they were ordered to execute HAP contracts with the Oakland Housing Authority, the district court failed to make the essential finding that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants are ordered to enter HAP contracts with the Oakland Housing Authority.