| 词条 | Darby v. Cisneros |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Darby v. Cisneros |ArgueDate=March 22 |ArgueYear=1993 |DecideDate=June 21 |DecideYear=1993 |FullName=R. Gordon Darby, et al. v. Henry Gabriel Cisneros, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al. |USVol=509 |USPage=137 |ParallelCitations=113 S. Ct. 2539; 125 L. Ed. 2d 113 |Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |Subsequent= |Holding=Federal courts cannot require exhaustion of administrative remedies unless mandated by statute or agency rules. |SCOTUS=1991-1993 |Majority=Blackmun |JoinMajority=unanimous |LawsApplied=Administrative Procedure Act (APA), {{usc|5|701|706}} }} 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 caseR. 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. See also
Further reading
External links
| case = Darby v. Cisneros, {{ussc|509|137|1993|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112891/darby-v-cisneros/ | googlescholar = | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/137/ | loc = | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-2045{{SCOTUS-case-stub}} 5 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|United States administrative case law|1993 in United States case law|United States Department of Housing and Urban Development |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。