Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)

Citation
Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Parent Document
Crochet v. Housing Authority, 37 F.3d 607 (1994)
Effective Date
1994-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text

502 chars
The Tenants’ complaint asserts that THA’s proposed conversion to retail service would violate due process because it would result “in the delegation to the utility companies ... the authority to decide whether the Plaintiffs have continued occupancy ... by categorical acceptance of TECO’s belief’ that a tenant owes an arrearage or security deposit. (R.l-1 at 21.) This argument is based on the provision in all THA leases that requires tenants to maintain utility service as a condition of residency.