24 C.F.R. § 886.117
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1982–1989 · leading case: Margaret Ressler, Plaintiffs/appellees/cross-Appellants v. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Defendants/appellants/cross-Appellees, 692 F.2d 1212 (9th Cir. 1982).
Margaret Ressler, Plaintiffs/appellees/cross-Appellants v. Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., Defendants/appellants/cross-Appellees, 692 F.2d 1212 (9th Cir. 1982). “For example, the regulations dictate what percentage of the Section 8 contract units an owner must rent to “very low-income families” ( 24 C.F.R. § 886.117 (b) (1982)) and require the owner to select eligible tenants in accordance with a HUD-approved marketing plan (id.”
Overton v. John Knox Ret. Tower, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 934 (M.D. Ala. 1989). “For example, the regulations dictate what percentage of the Section 8 contract units an owner must rent to “very low-income families” ( 24 C.F.R. § 886.117 (b)) and require the owner to select eligible tenants in accordance with a HUD-approved marketing plan.”
Hill v. Grp. Three Hous. Dev. Corp., 620 F. Supp. 355 (E.D. Mo. 1985). “§ 1437f(d)(1)(A) and 24 C.F.R. § 886.117 (a)(b) as creating a property interest that is sufficient to support a due process claim.”
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.