25 U.S.C. § 4151
Annual allocation
For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate any amounts made available for assistance under this chapter for the fiscal year, in accordance with the formula established pursuant to section 4152 of this title, among Indian tribes that comply with the requirements under this chapter for a grant under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 2006–2017 · leading case: Modoc Lassen Indian Hous. Auth. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 881 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2017).
Modoc Lassen Indian Hous. Auth. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 881 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2017). “And because HUD allocates funds to all tribes from a finite yearly pool, 7 see 25 U.S.C. § 4151 , a tribe that erroneously reports an inflated number of eligible housing units will not only receive an overpayment, but will necessarily reduce the funds available to other eligible…”
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 567 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2009). “" 25 U.S.C. § 4151 . Under this framework, before an Indian tribe can receive NAHASDA funding, the tribe must submit a statement of the housing needs in the tribe's jurisdiction.”
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 584 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “25 U.S.C. §§ 4151 , 4152, 4116. Congress specified, however, that the allocation formula should reflect the needs of the Indian tribes, including: “(1) The number of low-income housing dwelling units owned or operated at the time pursuant to a contract between an Indian housing…”
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “he misallocation of grant funds is not an issue of a grant recipient’s compliance with NAHASDA that should be addressed under Title IV (Sections 401 and 405), but rather of HUD’s own failure to comply with the statute, specifically with the agency’s obligation to pay grant…”
Fort Peck Hous. Auth. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Colo. 2006). “See 25 U.S.C. §§ 4151 , 4152, 4116. NAHASDA provides that HUD shall make grants on behalf of Indian tribes to carry out affordable housing activities for each fiscal year from an appropriation for that year for tribes that have submitted an Indian housing plan, meeting general…”
Fort Belknap Hous. Dep't v. Off. of Pub. & Indian Hous., 726 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013). “See 25 U.S.C. § 4151 . Because the total amount of money available to all tribes is fixed, the IBHG Program is a zero-sum game: Any change in one tribe's allocation requires an offsetting change to other tribes' allocations.”
Yakama Nation Hous. Auth. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 478 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “at 885 (citing 25 U.S.C. §§ 4151 , 4152, 4116). If all the funds were not disbursed in the year, the appropriated funds were to be included into the next year’s funding for distribution.”
Crow Tribal Hous. Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 781 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015). “Because all tribes receive grants from the same finite pool of funds, see 25 U.S.C. § 4151 , overpayments to one tribe directly reduce the funds available for other tribes.”
Modoc Lassen Indian Hous. Auth. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 864 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2017). “And because HUD allocates funds to all tribes from a finite yearly pool, see 25 U.S.C. § 4151 , a tribe that erroneously reports an inflated number of eligible housing units will not only receive an overpayment, but will necessarily reduce the funds available to other eligible…”
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.