§ 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

878 chars

Finally, the Housing Authority breached this mandatory
duty and this breach was the proximate cause of injury to the
plaintiffs. As described earlier, the flyer was totally
incomprehensible to anyone without a relatively sophisticated
understanding of the machinations of Section 8 subsidy
payments. It did not provide the average recipient with any
meaningful information about the change or its potential
adverse impact. As with the due process claims, the Housing
Authority argues that no injury could have occurred because
it had total discretion to decrease the payment standard. Once
again, the Authority misunderstands the nature of the
plaintiffs’ challenge. The question here is not whether the
payment standard could be decreased, but whether the
manner in which the Housing Authority implemented the
                       NOZZI V. HACLA                           43

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text