DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)

Citation
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Parent Document
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Effective Date
2001-01-24
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086389/rucker-v-davis/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

611 chars 
In this case, neither party suggests that the district court applied the wrong preliminary injunction standard. HUD and OHA, however, do assert that the district court misapprehended the law with respect to the breadth of § 1437d(J )(6). They contend the district court therefore based its decision on an erroneous legal interpretation, thereby abusing its discretion. Accordingly, we must turn to the proper interpretation of § 1437d(i)(6), a question of law which we review de novo. See, e.g., Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 634-35 (9th Cir.1998); Does 1-5, 83 F.3d at 1152. IV. SECTION U37d(l) (6)