§ 1437f

Citation: § 1437f
Parent Document: Nozzi v. Housing Authority, 806 F.3d 1178 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3158630/nozzi-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,228 chars

11
     In so holding, the prior panel held that the grant of summary judgment
in favor of the defendants was inappropriate because there was a material
issue of fact as to whether the steps taken by the Housing Authority
protected against a sudden change in benefits. The majority did not find
it necessary, for purposes of reversing the district court’s grant of
summary judgment, to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ contentions that
they had a right to a stable one-year term of benefits and that any steps by
the Housing Authority taken less than one year before the change would
be insufficient to protect this interest.
  12
    As described in greater detail below, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319 (1976) requires courts, when determining what process is due to
protect an interest covered by the due process clause, to examine (1) the
private interest that will be affected by an official action; (2) the risk of
erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and
the probable value of additional or substitute safeguards; and (3) the
government’s interest, which includes the administrative burdens of
additional or substitute procedures. Id. at 335.
16                       NOZZI V. HACLA

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text