23 U.S.C. § 110
Repealed. Pub. L. 112–141, div. A, title I, § 1519(b)(1)(A), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 575]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1965–2002 · leading case: Barnhart v. Brinegar, 362 F. Supp. 464 (W.D. Mo. 1973).
Barnhart v. Brinegar, 362 F. Supp. 464 (W.D. Mo. 1973). “” 23 U.S.C. § 110 (a) (1970). “After completion of a project in accordance with the plans and specifications, and approval of the final voucher by the Secretary, a State shall be entitled to payment out of the appropriate sums apportioned to it of the unpaid balance of the…”
Arlington Coalition on Transp. v. John A. Volpe, Sec'y of Transp., 458 F.2d 1323 (4th Cir. 1972). “23 U.S.C.A. § 110 . Advertisements for bids may then be published and construction contracts awarded.”
James Julian, Inc. v. State High. Admin., 492 A.2d 308 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985). “12 23 U.S.C. § 110 (b) (1976) provides: (b) The Secretary may rely upon representations made by the State highway department with respect to the arrangements or agreements made by the State highway *91 department and appropriate local officials where a part of the project is to…”
State of Tenn. Ex Rel. Leech v. Dole, 567 F. Supp. 704 (M.D. Tenn. 1983). “23 U.S.C. § 110 . Ordinarily, after a highway project has been approved the contractor begins work and the State makes payments to the contractor.”
United States v. Azzarelli Constr. Co., State of Illinois, Intervening, 647 F.2d 757 (7th Cir. 1981). “23 U.S.C. § 110 (1976). Eventually, the state advertises for bids on the project, contracts with a private party for the desired construction and submits the contract for the approval of the Secretary of Transportation.”
Movement Against Destruction v. Volpe, 361 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Maryland 1973). “See 23 U.S.C. §§ 110 and 121. The Bridwell letter, not having been the result of a request for “program approval” as contemplated in 23 U.”
Ward v. Ackroyd, 344 F. Supp. 1202 (D. Maryland 1972). “23 U.S.C.A. § 110 . Advertisements for bids may then be published and construction contracts awarded.”
The Robinswood Cmty. Club v. Jones A. Volpe, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Transp., 506 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1974). “23 U.S.C. § 110 provides as follows: § 110.”
Citizens Organized to Defend the Env't, Inc. v. Volpe, 353 F. Supp. 520 (S.D. Ohio 1972). “11 Thus, the Secretary’s approval was given under 23 U.S.C. § 110 (a), 12 which does not expressly limit the Secretary’s power to approve access and exit points.”
State of Missouri v. Stupp Bros. Bridge & Iron Co., 248 F. Supp. 169 (W.D. Mo. 1965). “23 U.S.C. § 110 . Exhibit A to Stipulation No.”
New York v. Hendrickson Bros., 840 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1988). “See 23 U.S.C. § 110 (1982). In discharging its contractual obligation to repay a share of the State’s highway construction expenses, the government dealt only with the State, making its payments to “such official or officials .”
Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1974). “Under 23 U.S.C. § 110 (a), the Secretary cannot enter into a “formal project agreement” with a state highway department until he has given PS & E approval, and 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.