Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)

Citation
Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)
Parent Document
Williams v. Pierce, 708 F.2d 57 (1983)
Effective Date
1983-05-12

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text

645 chars
33
The majority argues that what appellants are challenging is a "procedure for making determinations," which is precluded by Sec. 322. This loose statutory construction is inappropriate in the context of interpretation of a provision that blocks judicial review. In the context of Sec. 322 of OBRA, "determination" clearly refers to fact finding, such as a determination whether or not immediate application of the rent increase to new tenants would be "impracticable." Sec. 322(i)(2). Appellants challenge neither HUD's fact finding, nor its procedures for finding facts; nor do they challenge the substance of HUD's "action" in raising rents.