Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Citation
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Parent Document
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1986-04-21
Other Sections in This Document (44)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
- Alice Ward v. Downtown Development Authority, 786 F.2d 1526 (1986)
Full Text
810 chars5 In dismissing appellants' amended complaint, the district court ruled that the expectancy of a tenant at will in the continuation of that tenancy is so uncertain and speculative that it cannot be considered a compensable property interest under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In response to appellants' claim that the failure to provide relocation assistance violated due process and equal protection of law, the court stated that Sec. 1983 provides a right of action only for a violation of those rights secured by the United States Constitution and not for a denial of state-created rights. Finally, having concluded that appellants' federal claims were not meritorious, the district court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over appellants' state law claims. This appeal followed. III. ISSUES