§ 151
- Citation
- § 151
- Parent Document
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2009-10-09
Other Sections in This Document (181)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 982
- § 982
- § 982
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
Full Text
808 charsThe district court held that LARSO actually conflicts with HUD’s “good cause” regulation because “it takes away a right specifically granted by the HUD regulation.” It granted summary judgment to Tenants, however, because it concluded that HUD’s definition of “good cause”— insofar as it includes the desire to raise the rent — was “unreasonable” and “manifestly contrary” to the statute, and therefore exceeded HUD’s authority. We do not agree that LARSO and the HUD regulation actually conflict. The HUD regulation does not create a “right” to evict tenants to raise the rent that LARSO takes away. The HUD regulation merely creates a floor of protection, which local laws may enhance. Thus, although we disagree with the district court’s preemption analysis, we do agree that LARSO controls Morton’s *1208