24 C.F.R. § 200.600

Purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the Department's equal opportunity regulations for affirmative fair housing marketing under FHA subsidized and unsubsidized housing programs.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1976–1992 · leading case: Young v. Pierce, 544 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Tex. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Young v. Pierce, 544 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Tex. 1982). · cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 200.600 , et seq. (fair housing marketing), and § 841.”

United States v. Inc. Vill. of Island Park, 791 F. Supp. 354 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “An Affirmative Fair Housing Market Program (“AFHMP”) was submitted to HUD with respect to the first phase pursuant to 24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 . On February 14, 1980, HUD approved the AFHMP and stated that: The selecting or giving of preference to prospective purchasers .”

Jenkins v. State of Mo., 593 F. Supp. 1485 (W.D. Mo. 1984). “HUD established affirmative marketing regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 , 841.202 and 880.206, and the evidence reflects that the Kansas City HUD office monitored these affirmative fair housing and marketing plans very closely.”

Young v. Pierce, 628 F. Supp. 1037 (E.D. Tex. 1985). “24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 , 200.700. These regulations are prospective and use explicit racial classifications, in contrast to the tenant selection and assignment plans.”

Almonte v. Pierce, 666 F. Supp. 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “HUD responded to this mandate by promulgating Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing regulations (“AFHM regulations”), 24 C.F.R. § 200.600 et seq., which are further explicated in HUD’s “Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Requirements Handbook” (the “Handbook”).”

Williamsburg Fair Hous. Comm. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 73 F.R.D. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 et seq. Also named as a third-party defendant is the Housing and Development Administration of the City of New York (“HDA”), which has responsibility for supervising tenant selection at Clem-ente Plaza in compliance with its own regulations and federal law…”

Young v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 975 (E.D. Tex. 1988). “See 24 C.F.R. §§ 200.600 et seq., 941.202(b).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.