(a) A recipient must have objective integrity and independence from any organization that engages in restricted activities. A recipient will be found to have objective integrity and independence from such an organization if:
(1) The other organization is a legally separate entity;
(2) The other organization receives no subgrant of LSC funds from the recipient, as defined in 45 CFR part 1627, and LSC funds do not subsidize restricted activities; and
(3) The recipient is physically and financially separate from the other organization. Mere bookkeeping separation of LSC funds from other funds is not sufficient. LSC will determine whether sufficient physical and financial separation exists on a case-by-case basis and will base its determination on the totality of the facts. The presence or absence of any one or more factors will not be determinative. Factors relevant to this determination shall include but will not be limited to:
(i) The existence of separate personnel;
(ii) The existence of separate accounting and timekeeping records;
(iii) The degree of separation from facilities in which restricted activities occur, and the extent of such restricted activities; and
(iv) The extent to which signs and other forms of identification that distinguish the recipient from the organization are present.
(b) Each recipient's governing body must certify to LSC on an annual basis that the recipient is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
Notes of Decisions
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2010)
ca9 · cites it 8×
“[2] See 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 . The PIR provides that: (a) A[n] [LSC grant] recipient must have objective integrity and independence from any organization that engages in restricted activities.”
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2008)
ord · cites it 5×
“The State of Oregon filed a separate action against LSC alleging that one of the implementing regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (the “Program Integrity Rule” or “PIR”), both impermis-sibly infringed on its sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and exceeded federal…”
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2009)
ca9 · cites it 8×
“[2] See 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 . The PIR provides that: *1011 (a) A[n] [LSC grant] recipient must have objective integrity and independence from any organization that engages in restricted activities.”
Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp. (1997)
nyed · cites it 5×
“” 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 . As conceded by counsel for LSC and counsel for the United States at the Hearing, the program integrity requirements were carefully patterned after those approved in Rust.”
Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp. (2004)
nyed · cites it 2×
“LSC’s application of the various factors comprising physical and financial separation so that a recipient will have “objective integrity and independence from any organization that engages in restricted activities,” 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (a), must therefore be viewed with this…”
Legal Aid Society v. Legal Services Corp. (1998)
ca9 · cites it 5×
“See 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 . To determine if the organizations are separate, the LSC will examine certain factors, such as the existence of separate personnel and facilities.”
Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B v. Legal Services Corp. (2006)
ca2 · cites it 3×
“In the district court, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against defendant LSC to prevent enforcement of portions of LSC’s program integrity regulation, 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 , and § 504 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Pub.”
Legal Aid Society v. Legal Services Corp. (1997)
hid
“See 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (b). This amendment may be highly pertinent because the Court based its injunction on the previous interrelated organizations regulation embodied in 50 Fed.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8(a) — 1 case
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2008)
ord
“The State of Oregon filed a separate action against LSC alleging that one of the implementing regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (the “Program Integrity Rule” or “PIR”), both impermis-sibly infringed on its sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and exceeded federal…”
— 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8(a)(1) — 1 case
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2008)
ord
“The State of Oregon filed a separate action against LSC alleging that one of the implementing regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (the “Program Integrity Rule” or “PIR”), both impermis-sibly infringed on its sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and exceeded federal…”
— 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8(a)(3) — 1 case
LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2008)
ord
“The State of Oregon filed a separate action against LSC alleging that one of the implementing regulations, 45 C.F.R. § 1610.8 (the “Program Integrity Rule” or “PIR”), both impermis-sibly infringed on its sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and exceeded federal…”
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.