Appellate Section
HOUSING
-
Nelson v. HUD (9th Cir.) -- Brief as Respondent
- HUD correctly interpreted its own regulations to require, upon proof of noncompliance with HUD’s Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, that petitioners demonstrate compliance with some other objective measure of accessibility.
- Montana Fair Housing has standing under the Act
- The ALJ’s initial decision dismissing the suit against the Nelsons is not HUD’s final order, and thus, not reviewable
- HUD’s ruling that front entrances must be made accessible correctly interprets the Act
- HUD properly held Bernard Nelson liable as a co-owner of the property;
- Petitioners are not protected by their holding company from the court’s jurisdiction to enforce the remedial order’s retrofitting requirements
-
Bloch v. Frischholz (7th Cir.) (en banc) -- Amicus
- The Fair Housing Act and its regulations reach post-acquisition discrimination
- A jury could have found that the owners’ association’s interpretation and enforcement of the rule was motivated by religious and racial animus
-
Ho v. HUD (7th Cir.) -- Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
- On petition for review, Ho argues that the ALJ’s default judgment of liability and assessment of damages against her deprived her of due process. Fung argues that the ALJ’s default judgment of liability and assessment of damages arbitrarily departed from HUD and Circuit precedent. The Division responded to these claims and cross-petition for enforcement of HUD’s final order
-
Reed v. Peñasquitos Casablanca Owner's Ass'n (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
- The district court erred in holding that plaintiffs harmed by the harassment of another can never state a claim under the FHA
- The district court erred in holding that a victim must endure or witness overtly sexual behavior in order to recover in a case involving harassment on the basis of sex
- The district court erred in holding that a homeowner’s association’s mere inaction after it is notified of an employee’s possible harassment can never justify an award of punitive damages
-
United States v. Mullins (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
- Any error that may have occurred during the cross-examination was invited error, and therefore is not reviewable
- In the alternative, Mullins is unable to establish plain error
- The record is not sufficient to allow the court of appeals to address Mullins’ ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, and, even if it were, Mullins is unable to demonstrate prejudice because the evidence supporting his conviction was overwhelming
-
McClain v. Shelter General Insurance Co. (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims
-
Saunders v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims
-
Saunders v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (8th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
The Mccarran-Ferguson Act does not bar plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act claims
-
George v. Colony Lakes Property Owners Ass'n (N.D. Ill.) -- Amicus
-
24 C.F.R. 100.400(c)(2) permissibly interprets 42 U.S.C. 3617 to reach postacquisition discrimination
| Document |
Date |
| Brief as Amicus [PDF]
| 04/14/06 |
| District Court Decision, available at 2006 WL 1735345
|
09/26/06 |
-
Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
(7th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
Does 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) or 28 C.F.R. 41.53 apply to disputes about
zoning in suits under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act?
-
Do 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7) and 28 C.F.R. 41.53, if applicable to zoning
disputes, create an entitlement to accomodation in the absence of
intentional discrimination or disparate impact?
-
If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is yes, are the regulations valid?
-
White v. HUD (7th Cir.) -- Respondent
-
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ'S decision that the August 1998
telephone conversation did not violate 42 U.S.C. 3604(C)
-
The ALJ did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant petitioner's
request to amend the charge of discrimination
-
Richard & Milton Grant Co. v. Memphis Center for Independent Living
(6th Cir.) -- Respondent
-
United States v. Garden Homes Management Corp. (3d Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sanction of $1,000
per day for 208 days for defendants' failure to comply with the consent order
and the court's first contempt order
-
United States v. City of Jackson (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees
and expenses as compensation for the City's violation of the consent decree
-
United States v. Edward Rose & Sons (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary
injunction
-
The design of the 19 proposed buildings violates the Fair Housing Act
-
The district court had discretion to enter a preliminary injunction because
the United States demonstrated at least a reasonable probability that a
statutory violation had occurred or was about to occur
-
Even if the traditional equitable factors applied here, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction
-
HUD v. Kocerka (7th Cir.) -- Petitioner
-
Whether this Court should set aside the order of enforcement it issued after
Respondents failed to answer the third show cause order
-
Fair Housing of Marin County v. Jack Combs (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
Fair housing group established standing under the Fair Housing Act and
Article III by demonstrating that the defendant's illegal housing discrimination
injured the group's fair housing educational and counseling program, requiring
the group to undertake remedial programs in the community to mitigate the damage
-
Groome Resources, Ltd. v. Parish of Jefferson (5th Cir.) -- Intervenor
-
Fair Housing Act is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment
-
Tenth Amendment no bar to application of Fair Housing Act to county
-
Act is not unconstitutionally vague
-
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
Landlords' Free Exercise Clause challenge to local fair housing law must
fail because landlord did not make colorable claim that fair housing law
constituted a taking of property or violated First Amendment right to free speech
-
Veles v. Lindow (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
Fair Housing Act prohibits actions with discriminatory effects on the basis
of national origin
-
English-only rule imposed by landlord may violate Fair Housing Act
-
LA ACORN Fair Housing v. LeBlanc (5th Cir.) -- Amicus
-
Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not
state, law
-
Punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act can be awarded without an award
of compensatory damages
-
Alexander v. Riga (3d Cir.) -- Amicus
-
Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not
state, law
-
Punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act can be awarded without an award
of compensatory damages
-
Showing of intentional discrimination is sufficient for award punitive damages
-
United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc. (8th Cir.) -- Appellee
-
Evidence sufficient to show pattern and practice of discrimination
-
Award of punitive damages under Fair Housing Act governed by federal, not
state, law
-
Appropriate to examine defendants' wealth in assessing punitive damages
-
$25,000 in punitive damages per defendant did not violate due process
Browse Briefs by Category
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National
Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Religion Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other
Updated March 10, 2009
