§ 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

1,043 chars

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976); Mullane
v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950). Accordingly, in Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme
Court set forth a three-part inquiry to determine whether the
procedures provided to protect a liberty or property interest
are constitutionally sufficient. 424 U.S. at 334–35. First,
courts must look at the nature of the interest that will be
affected by the official action, and in particular, to the
“degree of potential deprivation that may be created.” Id. at
341. Second, courts must consider the “fairness and
reliability” of the existing procedures and the “probable
value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards.” Id. at 343.
Finally, courts must assess the public interest, which
“includes the administrative burden and other societal costs
that would be associated with” additional or substitute
procedures. Id. at 347.17 Here, plaintiffs request notice of
any intended changes to their housing subsidies provided at
least one year in advance of the change.

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text