24 C.F.R. § 886.113
Physical condition standard; physical inspection requirements
(a) General. Housing used in this program must be maintained and inspected in accordance with the requirements in 24 CFR part 5, subpart G.
(b)-(m) [Reserved]
(n) Congregate housing. In addition to the foregoing standards, the following standards apply to congregate housing:
(1) The unit shall contain a refrigerator of appropriate size.
(2) The central dining facility (and kitchen facility, if any) shall contain suitable space and equipment to store, prepare and serve food in a sanitary manner, and there shall be adequate facilities and services for the sanitary disposal of food wastes and refuse, including facilities for temporary storage where necessary (e.g., garbage cans).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1986–2002 · leading case: United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., 326 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., 326 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2002). “7 (citing, inter alia, 24 C.F.R. § 886.113 ), cited in Majority Opinion at __, but the majority opinion correctly recognizes its inutility.”
Multi-Fam. Mgmt., Inc. v. Hancock, 664 A.2d 1210 (D.C. 1995). “Housing Code standards imposed on the landlord do not conflict with the federal housing standards imposed by HUD on properties receiving project-based Section 8 assistance.”
United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., W. Thad McLaurin Charles C. Taylor, Jr. Arthur W. Doty, 288 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2002). “7 (citing, inter alia, 24 C.F.R. § 886.113 ), cited in Majority Opinion.”
United States v. Southland Mgmt. Corp., Inc., 95 F. Supp. 2d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2000). “” The Government has contended that what is “decent, safe, and sanitaiy” is determined by reference to the "minimum Housing Quality Standards” (HQS) set forth by HUD primarily in 24 C.F.R. § 886.113 ; that is, according to the Government, housing which meets the minimum HQS is…”
Marshall v. Cuomo, 192 F.3d 473 (4th Cir. 1999). “See 24 C.F.R. § 886.113 (1999); see also 24 C.”
Hale Ex Rel. Hale v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 642 F. Supp. 1107 (N.D. Ill. 1986). “The sole issue before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is whether there exists a private right of action to enforce HUD regulations governing safety and sanitation at public housing projects, see 24 C.F.R. 886.113. These…”
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.