22 U.S.C. § 2201

Assistance to disadvantaged children in Asia

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Congressional findings

The Congress recognizes the humanitarian needs of disadvantaged children in Asian countries where there has been or continues to be a heavy presence of United States military and related personnel in recent years. Moreover, the Congress finds that inadequate provision has been made for the care and welfare of such disadvantaged children, particularly those fathered by the 11 So in original. United States citizens.

(b) Authority of President

Accordingly, the President is authorized to expend up to $3,000,000 of funds made available under part I of this subchapter, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, to help meet the needs of these disadvantaged children in Asia by assisting in the expansion and improvement of orphanages, hostels, day care centers, school feeding programs, and health, education, and welfare programs. Assistance provided under this section shall be furnished under the auspices of and by international organizations or private voluntary agencies operating within, and in cooperation with, the countries of Asia where these disadvantaged children reside.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, § 241, as added Pub. L. 95–424, title I, § 116, Oct. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 952; amended Pub. L. 99–83, title IX, § 903(a), Aug. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 268.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 2201, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, § 241, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 433; Pub. L. 88–205, pt. I, § 105, Dec. 16, 1963, 77 Stat. 382, related to general authority of President respecting development research and use of funds for research into problems of population growth, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 94–161, title III, § 306(1), Dec. 20, 1975, 89 Stat. 858.

Amendments

1985—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–83 substituted “$3,000,000” for “$2,000,000”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesReferences to Part I Deemed To Include Section 2293

References to part I of this subchapter are deemed to include a reference to section 2293 of this title. See section 2293(d)(1) of this title.

Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–83 effective Oct. 1, 1985, see section 1301 of Pub. L. 99–83, set out as a note under section 2151–1 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 605 of Pub. L. 95–424, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 2151 of this title.

Executive DocumentsDelegation of Functions

For delegation of functions of President under this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 F.R. 56673, as amended, set out as a note under section 2381 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Glen v. Club Méditerranée S.A.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Glen v. Club Méditerranée S.A. (2005) flsd · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs argue that the Declaratory Judgment Act, permits the court, where an actual controversy exists, to “declare the rights and other legal remedies of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.”

Artichoke Joe's v. Norton (2002) caed “With respect to the existing compacts and the Governor, the plaintiffs have properly alleged an injury in fact which could merit declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. Plaintiffs allege both a violation of their right to equal protection…”

Rosen v. City of New York (2009) nysd “…United States Constitution, and seeking damages and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) and 22 U.S.C. § 2201 . Rosen also asserts state law claims of assault, battery, medical malpractice, negligence, and violation of New York State Correctional Law §§…”

Coltrane v. Lappin (2012) dcd “In addition to seeking money damages, the amended complaint requests a declaratory judgment pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2201 that “the practices, acts, and omissions complained of herein violate[d]” the plaintiff's rights.”

Government Employees Insurance Company v. Alexander Dizol, Special Administrator of the Estate of Kevin Tate Dizol, Dece (1997) ca9 “The Declaratory Judgment Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, was enacted in 1934.”

Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (2000) paed “§ 1983 , and 22 U.S.C. § 2201 (a), and seeks declaratory and in-junctive relief.”

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fl v. United States (2006) flsd “The Intervenors seek one remedy in this action: expeditious implementation of the so-called “marsh operational criteria.”

Wenzel v. Sand Canyon Corp. (2012) mad “_” refers to Defendant Commerce's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & (6) (Docket No.”

Fusco v. Rome Cable Corp. (1994) nynd “57 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2201 . Since the denial of Rome Cable’s original motion in March, 1993, and indeed until April, 1994, little had changed with respect to the PBGC’s actions in connection with the section 4049 trust which is the subject of this…”

Legion Insurance v. Family Service, Inc. (2008) rid “Accordingly, when jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship, dismissal is required when a non-diverse party is joined unless the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims involving that party. See Moore’s at § 20.02[5][a] (“If plaintiff joins parties in…”

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. All Sports Arena Amusement, Inc. (2002) moed “Plaintiff responds that it is entitled to declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2201 , and under Eighth Circuit law.”

Kersey v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (2010) vaed “22 U.S.C.A. § 2201 (a) (West 2009). The fact that the Plaintiff may also arguably have a claim for breach of contract is irrelevant, as “[t]he existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate.”

Show all 55 citing cases →

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.