Section 8

Citation: Section 8
Parent Document: Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-10-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1487f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
§ 1437f
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8
Section 8

Full Text

749 chars

. The majority notes, correctly, that the text of the statute does not reference any limitation on the right to remain. It therefore suggests that there can be no justification for the rule I (and HUD and other courts) would adopt, which allows for nonrenewals for good cause. Maj. Op. at 109 n.8. But an ambiguity regarding the scope of the right to remain does not mean that a right to remain does not exist. When a statute is ambiguous, "we are left to resolve that ambiguity.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 345, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). The majority writes as if any uncertainty in a statutory provision renders that provision meaningless. Our volumes of decisions interpreting statutes make obvious that this is not so.