Puneet Varma (Editor)

Darby v. Cisneros

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
End date
  
1993

Full case name
  
R. Gordon Darby, et al. v. Henry Gabriel Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

Citations
  
509 U.S. 137 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2539

Prior history
  
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Majority
  
Blackmun, joined by unanimous

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot require that a plaintiff exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial review when exhaustion of remedies is not required by either administrative rules or statute.

Facts of the case

R. Gordon Darby, a real estate developer in South Carolina, was banned from participating in Department of Housing and Urban Development programs for 18 months. He and others files in federal court even though they had not exhausted the internal HUD review process. Henry Cisneros, as HUD Secretary, was the respondent.

References

Darby v. Cisneros Wikipedia


Similar Topics