§ 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

1,122 chars

established, “[w]here the names and post addresses of those
affected . . . are at hand, the reasons disappear for resort to
means less likely than the mails to apprise” affected persons.
339 U.S. at 315 (emphasis added). The Housing Authority
certainly knew the names and addresses of the Section 8
tenants for whom it was supplying housing benefits, and
indeed sent the flyers directly to the tenants, but it failed to
provide an understandable notice directly to them at the time
it would be relevant to the loss or diminution of their
benefits.20 All things considered, therefore, the public
outreach meetings were not “reasonably certain to inform
those affected” of the change to the payment standard, or the
effect of such change. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315 (emphasis
added). Indeed, even construed most favorably to the
Housing Authority, the outreach meetings when considered
along with all the other factors in this case fail to raise a
genuine issue of fact as to whether the steps taken by the
Housing Authority provided constitutionally adequate notice
of the potential change to the plaintiffs’ property rights.

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text