§ 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
815 charsmissibility of such a directive, does not itself suggest that state courts should reject local eviction controls. In fact, the preemption of LARSO would nullify 24 C.F.R. § 982.509, because an owner would be able to escape rent control by evicting tenants in order to raise their rent. In other words, as Tenants persuasively argue, the preemption of local eviction controls by HUD’s “good cause” regulation would lead to absurd results in a vacancy decontrol jurisdiction like California, because it would make assisted tenants special victims of eviction by landlords desiring to take advantage of vacancy decontrol to raise rents. We refuse to construe “[[legislative enactments ... as establishing statutory schemes that are illogical, unjust, or capricious.” Bechtel Constr., Inc. v. United Bhd. of Carpenters,