Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros

37 F.3d 442 (1994)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,500+ case briefs...

Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

37 F.3d 442 (1994)

Facts

In the State of Washington, tenants in public-housing projects generally could not be evicted without a grievance hearing before the public-housing authority (PHA) responsible for the project in which they lived. PHAs could, however, be exempted from the grievance procedure for evictions for drug- or crime-related reasons if the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that the state’s court-eviction procedures complied with due-process requirements. In 1991, HUD determined that Washington’s court-eviction procedure complied with these requirements. In response, several PHAs amended their lease agreements to reflect that they were not required to provide grievance hearings to tenants being evicted for crime-related reasons. In 1992, public-housing tenant Marla Davison was served with an eviction notice informing her that she was not entitled to a grievance hearing because she was being evicted for alleged criminal activity. Representing a class of public-housing tenants, Yesler Terrace Community Council and Eric Bolden (plaintiffs) filed suit against HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros (defendant), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment to HUD. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that because HUD had failed to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before making its determination that Washington’s state-court eviction procedures complied with due process, HUD had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59, and its own regulations.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Canby, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 545,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,500 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership