Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Citation
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Parent Document
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1994-11-04
Other Sections in This Document (42)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
- Crochet v. Housing Authority Of The City Of Tampa, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Full Text
914 chars33 The Tenants also argue that THA's proposed conversion from checkmetering to retail service violates substantive due process, citing our statement that " 'deprivation of a property interest for an improper motive and by means that [are] pretextual, arbitrary and capricious' constitutes a substantive due process violation." Barnett v. Housing Auth. of City of Atlanta, 707 F.2d 1571, 1577 (11th Cir.1983) (alteration in original) (quoting Hearn v. City of Gainesville, 688 F.2d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir.1982)), overruled, McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc). Here, however, THA demonstrated valid, rational bases for its desire to convert from checkmetering to retail service: cost-effectiveness and uniformity. We agree with the district court that it does not appear that THA has acted "arbitrarily, capriciously, or irrationally." (R.1-29 at 6.) This claim is meritless. IV. Conclusion