40 U.S.C. § 402
LIMITATION ON COSTS.
“The United States shall not be responsible for paying any costs and expenses, other than costs and expenses related to or associated with environmental liabilities or cleanup actions provided under law, which are incurred by the District of Columbia or any other parties at any time in connection with effecting the provisions of this Act or any amendment made by this Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases, 1934–1943 · leading case: Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Cnty., 91 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1937).
Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Cnty., 91 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1937). “At least as to the classes of projects enumerated in section 202, 40 U.S.C.A. § 402 [and the project here falls within classes (a), (b) and (c)], Congress "lays down a legislative standard and declares a legislative policy with requisite definiteness, and impliedly directs the…”
Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of Indep., Kan., 79 F.2d 32 (10th Cir. 1935). “Does title 2 undertake unconstitutionally to delegate legislative powers to the President? Section 202 thereof (40 USCA § 402) provides that "the Administrator, under the direction of the President, shall prepare a comprehensive program of public works, which shall include" the…”
Greenwood Cnty. v. Duke Power Co., 81 F.2d 986 (4th Cir. 1936). “201 [ 40 U.S.C.A. § 402 ]): "The Administrator, under the direction of the President, shall prepare a comprehensive program of public works, which shall include among other things the following: (a) Construction, repair, and improvement of public highways and park ways, public…”
United States v. Certain Lands in City of Louisville, Jefferson Cnty., 78 F.2d 684 (6th Cir. 1935). “Section 202 (40 USCA § 402) authorizes the Administrator to prepare a comprehensive program of public works to include, among other things, "construction, reconstruction, alteration, or repair under public regulation or control of low-cost housing and slum-clearance projects.”
Missouri Utils. Co. v. City of California, 8 F. Supp. 454 (W.D. Mo. 1934). “Section 202, 40 USCA § 402. The President is authorized, through the Administrator, to finance, or aid in the financing of and to make grants for, the construction of any public works project included in the program referred to in section 202, among whieh is the construction of…”
City of Allegan v. Consumers' Power Co., 71 F.2d 477 (6th Cir. 1934). “Title 2 of the Recovery Act, 40 USCA § 402, requires the administrator to- prepare a comprehensive program of public works, and enumerates wlia.”
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. United States, 85 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1936). “$ection 202 of the same act ( 40 U.S.C.A. § 402 ) provided that the Administrator, under direction of the President, should prepare a comprehensive program of public works to include, among other things, “any projects of the character heretofore constructed or *246 carried on…”
Oklahoma City v. Sanders, 94 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1938). “The interpretation and application of a federal statute, 40 U.S.C.A. § 402 , providing for the construction of a program of public works, including slum clearing projects, and an Act of Congress of June 29, 1936, 40 U.”
United States v. State of Montana, 134 F.2d 194 (9th Cir. 1943). “” The complaint also alleged that acquisition of the lands in question was approved and determined to be necessary by the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator, acting pursuant to § 202 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat.”
Peterson v. United States Ex Rel. Marsh Lumber Co., 119 F.2d 145 (6th Cir. 1941). “195 , 40 U.S.C.A. § 402 and Section 23 of the Conservancy Act of Ohio, for execution and operation of the Project and Official Plan of the Conservancy District for flood control and improvement of navigation on the two rivers involved.”
California Water Serv. Co. v. City of Redding, 22 F. Supp. 641 (N.D. Cal. 1938). “195 , 200, 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 402 , 403); the purpose of said grant being to aid the city in the purchase or construction of a municipally-owned water distribution system.”
Irwin v. United States, 122 F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1941). “But since, as we view the case, to do so would involve the setting aside of an established rule of law and the introduction of uncertainty and doubt in its place, we are, as we think, impelled to reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court for a new…”
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.