Charleston Housing Authority v. United States Department of Agriculture

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that “[p]ermitting a Section 515 debtor who has made substantial prepayments to label a final payment thirty years prior to the original maturity date as anything other than a prepayment would be to elevate technical form over sub- stance”
• \The possibility of this recurrence is not so remote or speculative that our jurisdiction is lacking\
• owner’s decision to discontinue Section 8 subsidies, prepay mortgage, and demolish building would have been illegal as resulting in disparate impact on existing and prospective African-American tenants
• “Questions of mootness are matters of subject matter jurisdiction that we review de novo.”
• “To succeed on a claim of equitable estoppel against the government, a plaintiff must not only prove all the elements of equitable estoppel, but also that the government committed affirmative misconduct.”
• “Because the Housing Authority did not raise the issue, and because the question of whether a statute creates a private right of action is not a question of subject matter jurisdiction, we need not determine whether such a right exists.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).