U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 8— LOW-INCOME HOUSING › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

42 U.S.C. § 1437l

Repealed. Pub. L. 105–276, title V, § 522(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2564

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1987–2012 · leading case: Brenda Edwards v. Dist. of Columbia, a Mun. Corp., 821 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brenda Edwards v. Dist. of Columbia, a Mun. Corp., 821 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “They claimed that HUD violated the APA in so doing, and that the District violated plaintiffs’ rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1437l by failing to apply properly for such funds.”
Connelly v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 567 A.2d 1212 (Conn. 1990). “, 42 U.S.C. § 1437l; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1408 , which authorizes the United States Housing Authority to make, amend and rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Housing Act of 1937.”
Baumgartner v. Harrisburg Hous. Auth., 21 F.3d 541 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “Smerconish (collectively “HUD”), violated the consultation requirements of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437l (1988 & Supp. IV 1992), and related federal regulations.”
Valentine Props. Assocs. v. HUD (2d Cir. 2012). “§ 3535 (d); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1437l(j)(2) (1998) (specifically giving HUD authority to promulgate regulations defining “decent, safe, and sanitary” for repealed modernization fund).”
Gautreaux, Dorothy v. Chicago Hous. (7th Cir. 2007). “In the 1990s, in part because of the avail- ability of federal funds through the HOPE VI program (an acronym for “Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere”), see 42 U.S.C. § 1437l, repealed by Pub. L. 105-276, Title V, § 522(a), Oct.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1437l(e)(1)(E)(i) — 1 case
Baumgartner v. Harrisburg Hous. Auth., 21 F.3d 541 (3rd Cir. 1994). “Smerconish (collectively “HUD”), violated the consultation requirements of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437l (1988 & Supp. IV 1992), and related federal regulations.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1437l(f) — 1 case
Brenda Edwards v. Dist. of Columbia, a Mun. Corp., 821 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “They claimed that HUD violated the APA in so doing, and that the District violated plaintiffs’ rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1437l by failing to apply properly for such funds.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1437l(j)(2) — 1 case
Valentine Props. Assocs. v. HUD (2d Cir. 2012). “§ 3535 (d); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1437l(j)(2) (1998) (specifically giving HUD authority to promulgate regulations defining “decent, safe, and sanitary” for repealed modernization fund).”
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.