Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Citation
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Parent Document
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1983-08-19
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
- Zephier v. Pierce, 714 F.2d 856 (1983)
Full Text
689 charsThere simply was no real threat of eviction to Zephier until after the court determined the proper Section 8 eviction procedures. The Hedquists agreed not to utilize the existing MHRA procedures, which Zephier was challenging, until the question of their validity was resolved by the court. They had taken no action after they were told by the MHRA, prior to the initiation of Zephier’s lawsuit, that their February 28 termination letter was invalid. Because the preliminary injunction was unnecessary to prevent the Hedquists from taking action to evict Zethier, the Hedquists acted gratuitously in abiding by its terms. See United Handicapped Federation v. Andre, supra, 622 F.2d at 346.