24 C.F.R. § 8.33

Housing adjustments

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A recipient shall modify its housing policies and practices to ensure that these policies and practices do not discriminate, on the basis of handicap, against a qualified individual with handicaps. The recipient may not impose upon individuals with handicaps other policies, such as the prohibition of assistive devices, auxiliary alarms, or guides in housing facilities, that have the effect of limiting the participation of tenants with handicaps in the recipient's federally assisted housing program or activity in violation of this part. Housing policies that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the housing program or activity will not be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of this section if modifications to them would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program or activity or undue financial and administrative burdens.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Judy Just. v. Pendleton Place Apts., 40 F.3d 139 (6th Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Judy Just. v. Pendleton Place Apts., 40 F.3d 139 (6th Cir. 1994). “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, *141 practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling”) (Fair Housing Amendments Act); 24 C.F.R. § 8.33 (“A recipient [of federal…”

Hinneberg v. Big Stone Cnty. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 706 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 2005). “But we conclude that this argument was not sufficiently developed in the record to satisfy Big Stone County HRA’s burden of proof.”

Weatherford v. Nevada Rural Hous. Auth., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Nev. 2013). “28 (a)(5), and 24 C.F.R. § 8.33 . (Id. at 4). Specifically, in December 2008, Weath *1104 erford had put in a request for a reasonable accommodation to the NRHA.”

Liddy v. Cisneros, 823 F. Supp. 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “2d 980 (1979)); see 24 C.F.R. § 8.33 . The fundamental goal of the statutory scheme of preferences under section 8 is to ensure that low-income persons most in need of housing are placed first.”

Lloyd v. Hous. Auth. of Kirksville, 58 F.3d 398 (8th Cir. 1995). “2d 661 (1985); 24 C.F.R. § 8.33 (implementing Rehabilitation Act).”

Moore v. Capital Realty Grp., Inc. (W.D.N.Y. 2022). “So any claim challenging HUD’s 3 Moore also refers to HUD’s “complacen[cy] and/or complicit[y]” in the other defendants’ violations of 24 C.F.R. § 8.33 . See Docket Item 12-1 at 5-6.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.