42 U.S.C. § 1443
Provisions as controlling over other laws
Insofar as the provisions of any other law are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall be controlling.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: Alaska State Hous. Auth. v. Contento, 432 P.2d 117 (Alaska 1967).
Alaska State Hous. Auth. v. Contento, 432 P.2d 117 (Alaska 1967). “In support of its argument appellant ASHA cites 42 U.S.C. § 1443 which provides that the federal act should control over inconsistent provisions in state acts, 6 and refers to the several restrictive conditions imposed as conditions to federal participation contained in sections…”
Mary Fletcher v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 491 F.2d 793 (6th Cir. 1974). “42 U.S.C. § 1443 . . 95 Cong.Record 4808-4809.”
Cooper v. City of Plano Texas, 260 F. App'x 680 (5th Cir. 2007). “§ 1441 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1443 authorizes removal of a case to federal court by a plaintiff.”
San Francisco Tomorrow v. Romney, 342 F. Supp. 77 (N.D. Cal. 1972). “While it is not necessary to base this decision thereon, the importance with which Congress viewed the Housing Act is manifested by one of its preliminary provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 1443 : “Insofar as the provisions of any other law are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,…”
United States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 259 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001). “”42 U.S.C. § 1443(a)(1)(A). 2. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Damages Based on the Habitat Equivalency Analysis.”
Dep't of Fin. of Susse v. Clifford Polk Heirs (3rd Cir. 2018). “1 To the extent that Trammell invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1443 in his notice of removal, although this Court has jurisdiction to review “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section .”
Martin v. Watson (D. Haw. 2023). “3DCW-21-0002065, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1443 . [Id. at § 1.1.] According to the state judiciary’s electronic filing system, the case was a criminal prosecution against Green that was pending in the State of Hawai`i Third Circuit Court, North and South Hilo Division (“state…”
Biegon v. City of Dallas (N.D. Tex. 2021). “§ 1441 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1443 authorizes removal of a case to federal court by a plaintiff.”
State v. Calzada (W.D. Tex. 2020). “) The “Notice of Removal” attempts to remove separate criminal proceedings pending in Bexar County, Texas against Calzada and Mata pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1443 and consolidate them in this federal civil action.”
Ireland v. Simmons (W.D. Tex. 2024). “§ 1441 nor 42 U.S.C. § 1443 authorize removal of a case to federal court by a plaintiff.”
United States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 259 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001). “”42 U.S.C. § 1443(a)(1)(A). 2. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Damages Based on the Habitat Equivalency Analysis.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1443(a)(1)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 259 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001). “”42 U.S.C. § 1443(a)(1)(A). 2. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Damages Based on the Habitat Equivalency Analysis.”
United States v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 259 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001). “”42 U.S.C. § 1443(a)(1)(A). 2. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Damages Based on the Habitat Equivalency Analysis.”
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.