Legal Opinion · Dissent

Housing Authority of Pittsburgh v. Fields

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 28, 2001Published

1DissentPellegrini, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s finding that for a housing authority to evict a tenant due to a household member’s drug activity, knowledge or consent on the part of the tenant has to be shown. To the contrary, Congress, in enacting Section 1437d(i)(5) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, authorized housing authorities to evict a tenant if a household member engaged in drug activity at or near a public housing community, even if the tenant had no knowledge that the household member was engaged in such activity. Even if I agreed with the majority’s interpretation of the Act, I would still…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Rust v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API