C.F.R. » Title 24 » PART 58—ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ENTITIES ASSUMING HUD ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES › Subpart B—General Policy: Responsibilities of Responsible Entities

24 C.F.R. § 58.17

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1981–2000 · leading case: Crosby v. Young
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crosby v. Young (1981) mied “24 C.F.R. § 58.17 (f)(5). However, based on the statements of Detroit in its request for emergency procedures and its proposed schedule for compliance with NEPA, CEQ approved Detroit’s request for alternate arrangements on September 24, 1980.”
Castenson v. City of Harcourt (2000) iand “The savings and loan contended, in the part of the case of interest here, that it and other property owners in the area to be condemned were persons “known to be interested” in the condemnation project, but the county had failed to provide them with personal notice of the FONSI…”
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.