Love v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 704 F.2d 100 (1983)

Citation: Love v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 704 F.2d 100 (1983)
Parent Document: Love v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 704 F.2d 100 (1983)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1983-03-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8926891/love-v-united-states-department... ↗

Full Text

789 chars

Third, invoking the principles of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978), HUD asserts that the district court’s order constitutes an unwarranted intrusion on the Agency’s prerogative, neither legitimized as an exercise of the district court’s equitable powers nor required by due process. Appellants underscore this argument by pointing to the cumbersome nature of the tenant-comment procedure and the burden it imposes upon the agency: the order provides for the processing of tenant complaints through HUD field offices, whose personnel, unlike the personnel in HUD’s central office, are not trained in evaluating tenant lease terms.12 For the reasons that follow, we believe that appellant’s position is substantially correct. II.

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text