42 U.S.C. § 1101
AUTHORITY.
“To provide for the revitalization and renewal of inner city neighborhoods in the areas of Los Angeles, California, that were damaged by the civil disturbances during April and May of 1992, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of new town developments in revitalizing and restoring depressed and underprivileged inner city neighborhoods, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, make any assistance authorized under this title available under this title to units of general local government, governing boards, and eligible mortgagors in accordance with the provisions of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1936–2025 · leading case: Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994).
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). “12 Despite certain similarities, the question whether federal labor law permits a State to grant or withhold unemployment insurance benefits from striking workers requires consideration of the policies underlying a distinct federal statute, Title IX of the Social Security Act,…”
unempl.ins.rep. Cch 21,877 United States of Am. v. Danielle Facchini, 832 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1987). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1101 (c)(4). Employers within the state contribute through payroll taxes the insurance funds disbursed by the state.”
Sevilla v. United States, 852 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (N.D. Ill. 2012). “42 U.S.C. § 1101 (3) and (5). However, the “threat of private money damage liability under Federal laws, including treble damage liability under Federal antitrust law, unreasonably discourages physicians from participating in effective professional peer review.”
Davis v. Boston & M. R. Co., 89 F.2d 368 (1st Cir. 1937). “), and chapter 151A of the Massachusetts General Laws (see chapter 479 of the Acts and Resolves of 1935 [section 5]); but, after intervention by the Commissioner and Collector of Internal Revenue and the filing of answers and a motion to strike by the intervening defendants, it…”
Gray v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 681 P.2d 807 (Utah 1984). “42 U.S.C. § 1101 (c)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 503 (a); 26 U.”
Holton v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 2005 VT 42 (Vt. 2005). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1101 (c)(1)(A) (providing for payments to states for assistance in administering their unemployment compensation programs).”
W.R. v. State of Ohio Health Dep't, 651 F. App'x 514 (6th Cir. 2016). “§ 794 (Count 3); violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Count 4); were subject to a cause of action under 42 U.”
Asa Hutchinson, in His Off. Capacity as Governor of Arkansas & Dr. Charisse Childers, in Her Off. Capacity as Dir., Arkansas Div. of Workforce Servs. v. Logan Armstrong Emily Ball Ronald Bates Cynthia Eyiuche & Kurt Johnsen, 2022 Ark. 59 (Ark. 2022). “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1101 , 1104, and 1105. These programs expired on September 6, 2021.”
United States v. Wholesale Oil Co., 154 F.2d 745 (10th Cir. 1946). “620 , 639, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. American Oil Co.”
Deecy Prods. Co. v. Welch, 124 F.2d 592 (1st Cir. 1941). “639 , 642, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. It denied that it was “an employer” under Section 907.”
United States v. Griswold, 124 F.2d 599 (1st Cir. 1941). “639 , 642, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. with respect to the compensation received by the plaintiffs for their services as trustees during the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, urging that the tax should not have been imposed since the trustees were not rendering services in an employment…”
Matcovich v. Anglim, 134 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1943). “The sole question involved in this appeal is: was appellant the employer of the girl dancers described herein so as to be liable for taxes levied by the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.? The City of Sacramento, California, has an ordinance which provides in part:…”
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.