Section 10
- Citation
- Section 10
- Parent Document
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1994-09-12
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (1994)
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
- Section 10
Full Text
875 charsI do not agree that anyone here has standing to challenge HUD’s action. None of the named plaintiffs is actually threatened with an eviction stemming from drug-related or other criminal activities, nor has Yesler alleged that any of its members are now under such a threat. Indeed, the plaintiffs before us — like the vast majority of public housing tenants in the state of Washington — will probably never face eviction for drug-related or other criminal activities, and thus will never be adversely affected by HUD’s action. The only injury they can allege is that they feel less secure in the possession of their premises because someday they might be evicted without a pre-eviction hearing. This is far too ethereal to constitute “injury in fact” for purposes of establishing standing under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).