42 U.S.C. § 3617
Interference, coercion, or intimidation
It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 727
cases (347 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Liana Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condo. As, 853 F.3d 96 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Liana Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condo. As, 853 F.3d 96 (3rd Cir. 2017). “§ 3604 (f)(3)(B), and interference with the exercise of their fair housing rights, 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . They also allege supplemental territorial claims.”
Xiangyuan (Sue) Zhu v. Countrywide Realty, Co., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Kan. 2001). “§ 1983 and intimidation based on race or sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . In her proposed amendment, plaintiff eliminates her 42 U.”
Nelson Walker, & Fair Hous. Found. of Long Beach, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. City of Lakewood, a California Mun., 272 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2001). “We hold that, as a general matter, retaliation against independent providers can be actionable under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617 , and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal.”
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2018). “" In addition, the Act makes it unlawful "to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of .”
Linkletter v. W. & S. Fin. Grp., Inc., 851 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2017). “Residents of the shelter had previously sued Western & Southern in federal court under the Fair Housing Act, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . As a result of that earlier litigation, Western & Southern reached a settlement with the shelter and purchased the property.”
Jeremy Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Add., 104 F.4th 1128 (9th Cir. 2024). “In Part II(a)(i)(2), reversing in part, the panel held that a reasonable jury could find that the HOA interfered with the Morrises’ right to purchase and enjoy their home free from discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . The panel concluded that, viewing the evidence…”
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2021). “” 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . 12 Douglas burden-shifting framework first developed in Title VII cases.”
Brenda Brown v. City of Tucson, a Mun. Corp. of the State of Arizona, 336 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2003). “More persuasive is Brown’s and amici’s citation to the anti-interference provision in the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3617 , a provision that was itself referenced in a Committee Report preceding the passage of the ADA.”
Castellano v. Access Premier Realty, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 3d 798 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “§ 3604 (f); and (2) interfering with the exercise or enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the FHA in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 . The Court addresses each claim separately.”
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003). “1998) (holding that public officials may assert qualified immunity in defense of claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 3617 , the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Housing Act, despite the inclusion of a good faith defense in the statute itself); see Torcasio v.”
Xiangyuan (Sue) Zhu v. Countrywide Realty, Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Kan. 2001). “Violations Of Fair Housing Laws (Count I) Count I of plaintiffs second amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in a willful and wanton manner in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617 and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 in denying her rights as a customer, home buyer and homeowner because of…”
Frakes v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, 872 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2017). “While this court has not previously addressed an interference claim made pursuant to the ADA or Section 504, we agree with the district court and the Ninth Circuit that guidance can be found in our application of the anti-interference provision of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”),…”
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.