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

766 chars

There is also no merit to appellee’s contention that the Constitution mandates such a procedure. A determination whether lease provisions are unreasonable on their face does not require the resolution of facts on a case-by-case basis; the Secretary was promulgating regulations of broad, general, and prospective application. As such, the rulemaking in which the Secretary was engaged here was essentially legislative, not adjudicative, in nature, and the Secretary was unlikely to make an “incorrect” decision because of lack of individual tenant input. It has long been established that the more stringent requirements of due process which attach in an adjudicatory proceeding are generally not compelled when agency action of a more legislative nature is pursued:

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text