24 C.F.R. § 570.300
General
This subpart describes the policies and procedures governing the making of community development block grants to entitlement communities and to non-entitlement counties in the State of Hawaii. The policies and procedures set forth in subparts A, C, J, K, and O of this part also apply to entitlement grantees and to non-entitlement grantees in the State of Hawaii. Sections 570.307 and 570.308 of this subpart do not apply to the Hawaii non-entitlement grantees.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1978–1989 · leading case: NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Pierce, 624 F. Supp. 1083 (D. Mass. 1985).
NAACP, Boston Chapter v. Pierce, 624 F. Supp. 1083 (D. Mass. 1985). “24 C.F.R. § 570.300 (b). This failure was found seriously to impede HUD in carrying out its statutory mandate under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ( 42 U.”
N.A.A.C.P., Boston Chapter v. Kemp, 721 F. Supp. 361 (D. Mass. 1989). “I found that HUD was in violation of its own regulations, by continuing to furnish CDBG funds despite the City’s failure to submit a Community Development and Housing plan identifying the “special needs” of the lower income population, required under 24 C.F.R. 570.300(b) (“the…”
Town of East Hartford v. Patricia Harris, 648 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “24 C.F.R. § 570.300 (a)(3)(i) (1977). 3 .”
Coalition for Block Grant Compliance v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 450 F. Supp. 43 (E.D. Mich. 1978). “First, defendants claim that 24 C.F.R. § 570.300 (c)(1976), requires that plaintiffs file objections to the *50 HAP within 15 days of publication in order for them to object to the data at this time.”
Town of East Hartford v. Harris, 450 F. Supp. 512 (D.D.C. 1978). “See 24 C.F.R. § 570.300 (a)(3) (1976). . It should be pointed out that, in making its decision known to the town by means of a telegram, HUD was not departing from past practice.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 570.300(b) — 1 case
N.A.A.C.P., Boston Chapter v. Kemp, 721 F. Supp. 361 (D. Mass. 1989). “I found that HUD was in violation of its own regulations, by continuing to furnish CDBG funds despite the City’s failure to submit a Community Development and Housing plan identifying the “special needs” of the lower income population, required under 24 C.F.R. 570.300(b) (“the…”
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.