Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)

Citation: Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
Parent Document: Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1984-01-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/431015/troy-ltd-v-renna/ ↗

Full Text

1,079 chars

59
Finally, any doubt that Loretto made no change in the law with respect to holdover tenancies is confirmed by the Supreme Court's summary dismissal for want of a substantial federal question in Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. Acheson Callahan, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 218, 78 L.Ed.2d 215 (1983). Fresh Pond, an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, rejected a challenge on taking grounds to the provisions of an ordinance of the City of Cambridge. That ordinance requires permission from the Cambridge Rent Control Board to remove occupied rental property from the housing market and to remove a tenant for that purpose. Fresh Pond had alleged that the ordinance authorized a tenant of the shopping center to remain "indefinitely." A fortiori, Fresh Pond's case seems stronger than that presented here. In dissenting from the Court's summary affirmance, Justice Rehnquist relied on Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan C.A.T.V. Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982), as analogous. The remaining Justices evidently did not agree.

Other Sections in This Document (109)

Full Text