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
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423595/zephier-v-pierce/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- 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)
- 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
796 chars4 The regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which the MHRA followed in establishing the procedures required for termination of Section 8 leases in Minneapolis, allowed a landlord to issue a termination notice simultaneously to the tenant and the MHRA. The notice had to state the grounds for eviction and advise the tenant that he or she had ten days to respond to the landlord and to present to the MHRA any objections to the proposed eviction. The MHRA conducted an informal investigation upon receipt of the notice, and if the MHRA approved the notice or failed to act within twenty days, the notice became effective and binding on the tenant. Zephier claimed that this procedure violated the statute and the due process clause and was thus invalid.