Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)

Citation
Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
Parent Document
Hussion v. Madigan, 950 F.2d 1546 (1992)
Effective Date
1992-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (46)

Full Text

867 chars
12
After a review of the revised administrative record that emerged from the ensuing discovery, the district court held in July 1990 that the 1983 amendment was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. See Hussion v. Yeutter, 741 F.Supp. 1563, 1568 (N.D.Ga.1990). In particular, the district court determined that the agency had accorded only cursory treatment to comments attacking its proposed revisions in which opponents pointed out several ways in which state laws were inadequate to protect tenants rights. Id. at 1567. The district court found that FmHA "either did not consider or ignored these important aspects of the [1983] Amendment" and that its explanation for the changes embodied by the new rule was not adequately supported by the record. Id. at 1568. It therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on their APA-based claim.