Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Narcisa Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (1974)

Citation
Narcisa Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (1974)
Parent Document
Narcisa Lopez v. Henry Phipps Plaza South, Inc., 498 F.2d 937 (1974)
Effective Date
1974-06-18

Other Sections in This Document (71)

Full Text

912 chars
86 Harv.L.Rev. at 909-10, there may not be enough of them to go around. See Schwartz & Wade, Legal Control of Government: Administrative Law in Britain and the United States, 121-24 (1972). Moreover, confiding the decision on the propriety of refusal to renew to a person with experience in the management of housing projects has positive factors as well as the negative ones that plaintiff emphasizes. Be all that as it may, “[t]he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation,” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). The fact that Mr. Codman might have been disqualified as a judge or subject to challenge for cause as a juror in a dispute between Phipps and Mrs. Lopez does not, either in principle or under the authorities, infect the hearing with a lack of due process. IV.