23 U.S.C. § 105

Repealed. Pub. L. 117–58, div. A, title I, § 11501(a), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 578]

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2021 · leading case: Submission of Interrogatories on House Bill 99-1325, 979 P.2d 549 (Colo. 1999).
Submission of Interrogatories on House Bill 99-1325, 979 P.2d 549 (Colo. 1999). · cites it 4× “See 23 U.S.C. § 105 (f), as amended by Act of June 9, 1998, 23 U.”
Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis, 813 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2016). “, 23 U.S.C. §§ 105 (a), 106(a), 109, 116(d); see also e.”
Movement Against Destruction v. Volpe, 361 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Maryland 1973). · cites it 5× “23 U.S.C.A. § 105 (a). This is usually called “program approval”, and is a prerequisite to reimbursement out of federal funds for any work in connection with a particular project.”
La Raza Unida of S. Alameda Cnty., Etc. v. John Volpe, Secty. Transp., Etc., 488 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1973). · cites it 4× “This is true because the Commission under its interpretation would be able to secure the program approval contemplated by 23 U.S.C. § 105 for a greater number of projects than could be funded by the sums apportioned and made available pursuant to 23 U.”
City of Cleveland v. Ohio, 508 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2007). “Thus 23 U.S.C. § 105 (a) reads in pertinent part: “The Secretary [of Transportation] may approve a program in whole or in part, but he shall not approve any project in a proposed program which is not located upon an approved Federal-aid system.”
Cnty. of Los Angeles Cal. v. Coleman, 423 F. Supp. 496 (D.D.C. 1976). · cites it 5× “23 U.S.C. §§ 105 (a), 106(a), 145. It is thus the State’s ultimate responsibility to select those urban projects submitted to the Secretary for funding ( 23 U.”
Amalgamated Transit Union-Div. 757 v. Yerkovich, 545 P.2d 1401 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “§ 103 (e)(3) (1970); 23 U.S.C. § 105 (a) (1970).”
Barnhart v. Brinegar, 362 F. Supp. 464 (W.D. Mo. 1973). · cites it 2× “Following program approval, the state highway department must submit to the Secretary for his approval surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates for each proposed project in an approved program. “The Secretary shall act upon such surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates…”
I-291 Why? Ass'n v. Burns, 372 F. Supp. 223 (D. Conn. 1974). · cites it 2× “23 U.S.C. § 105 . Approval of a state’s program under 23 U.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. John W. Snow, in His Off. Capacity as Adm'r, Fed. High. Admin., 561 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “62 See 23 U.S.C. § 105 (1970). 64 See 23 C.F.R. 790.”
Arlington Coalition on Transp. v. John A. Volpe, Sec'y of Transp., 458 F.2d 1323 (4th Cir. 1972). “23 U.S.C.A. § 105 (a). Then, the state highway department must submit to the Secretary for approval “such surveys, plans, specifications, and estimates for each proposed project included in an approved program as the Secretary may require.”
Citizens Organized to Defend the Env't, Inc. v. Volpe, 353 F. Supp. 520 (S.D. Ohio 1972). · cites it 3× “” 23 U.S.C. § 105 . If the Secretary gives his approval under 23 U.”
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.