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

784 chars
Although the Tenants dismiss these affidavits as self-serving, they indicate that THA does not plan to evict any resident without notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to work through his or her financial difficulties. See Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 598 F.2d 432, 436 (5th Cir.1979) (“Notice and an opportunity to be heard are ‘fundamental requisites of the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process.’ ”) (quoting Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 174, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2151, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974)). On the abbreviated set of facts presented, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the Tenants had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural due process claim.