Lancor v. Lebanon Housing Authority, 84-1543

Decision Date04 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-1543,84-1543
Citation760 F.2d 361
PartiesJudy LANCOR et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. LEBANON HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Defendants, Appellees. . Heard
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Shelly A. Simpson, Clarement, N.H. (Michael A. Fuerst, Claremont, N.H., on brief), for plaintiffs, appellants.

Patrick T. Hayes, Lebanon, N.H., for defendants, appellees.

Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and TIMBERS * Senior Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On December 14, 1984, this Court vacated an order entered in the District of New Hampshire on June 13, 1984 denying appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to this Court's December 14 order, the parties have submitted a stipulation of facts upon which they were able to agree. The parties also have submitted, as the order indicated they might, additional offers of proof and supplemental briefs in support of their respective positions. Based on the foregoing and for the reasons stated below, we hold that appellants (hereinafter "appellant" since Judy Lancor is the only appellant before us) are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

The standard in this Circuit for injunctive relief requires appellant to demonstrate: (1) irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) that such injury outweighs any harm which granting injunctive relief would inflict on appellee; (3) a likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of the injunction. Auburn News Co., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 659 F.2d 273, 277 (1st Cir.1981). Of these four factors, the probability-of-success component in the past has been regarded by us as critical in determining the propriety of injunctive relief. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009-22 (1st Cir.1981).

The underlying dispute in the instant case relates to appellant's admitted violation of paragraph 6c in appellee's lease which in relevant part provides that "[p]ermission from management in writing shall be required in the case of overnight guests...." Appellant claims that this provision violates her rights under the federal housing law as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Appellee claims that the provision is necessary for it to fulfill its mandate to provide safe, decent housing and to keep track of occupancy and eligibility in public housing.

Regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development state that a "lease shall provide that the tenant shall have the right to exclusive use and occupancy of the leased premises which shall include reasonable accommodation of the tenant's guests or visitors ...." 24 C.F.R. Sec. 966.4(d) (1984) (formerly 24 C.F.R. Sec. 866.4(d)) (emphasis added). The regulations also state that tenants are obligated to "abide by the necessary and reasonable regulations promulgated by the PHA (public housing agency) for the benefit and well-being of the housing project...." 24 C.F.R. Sec. 966.4(f)(4) (1984) (formerly 24 C.F.R. Sec. 866.4(f)(4)) (emphasis added).

Under the circumstances of this case, a regulation which requires a tenant to obtain the management's prior written approval of every overnight guest, and allows the management unfettered discretion to approve or disapprove the tenant's request, strikes us as neither necessary nor reasonable. This regulation also cannot be said to provide for the reasonable accommodation of a tenant's guests or visitors. Both parties agree that other similarly situated municipal housing authorities in New Hampshire only require a tenant to obtain the management's permission for guest stays of longer than two weeks. Without determining the validity of such regulations, and contrary to appellee's contention, obviously a two week grace period is significantly less intrusive upon the personal lives of tenants, than is appellee's regulation. Appellee has not demonstrated to our satisfaction why it alone must require such a stringent regulation in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Reardon v. US
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • 6 February 1990
    ...merits; and (4) that the public interest would not be adversely affected by the granting of the injunction. Lancor v. Lebanon Housing Authority, 760 F.2d 361, 362 (1st Cir.1985). See also Auburn News Co., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 659 F.2d 273, 277 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U......
  • Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 90-1392
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 15 May 1991
    ...interest will not be adversely affected. Planned Parenthood v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir.1981); Lancer v. Lebanon Housing Authority, 760 F.2d 361, 362 (1st Cir.1985). The balancing of interests shifts in plaintiffs' favor when a strong likelihood of success on the merits is sho......
  • Laidlaw, Inc. v. Student Transp. of America, Inc., CIV. 98-2241(WGB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 14 September 1998
    ...omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 683, 136 L.Ed.2d 608; Lancor v. Lebanon Housing Auth., 760 F.2d 361, 363 (1st Cir.1985) (holding that the plaintiff's strong showing on the balance of harms compensates for a weaker showing on the plaintiff's......
  • Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Civil Action No. H-06-1709.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 13 July 2006
    ...of homelessness"). The Court concludes such harm outweighs any prospective harm that FEMA may suffer. See Lancor v. Lebanon Hous. Auth., 760 F.2d 361, 363 (1st Cir.1985) (finding appellant demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the necessary harm for an injunctio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT