42 U.S.C. § 1452
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1955–2002 · leading case: Jo & Wo Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 157 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990).
Jo & Wo Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 157 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “Although an important goal of the title I programs was to provide "maximum opportunity for the redevelopment of project areas by private enterprise” ( 42 USC § 1452 [former (a)] [1949]), the Federal loans thereunder were only available to municipal governing bodies to subsidize…”
United States v. Richard Dale Owen, 536 F.2d 340 (10th Cir. 1976). “” HUD records included in the evidence indicate this was probably a temporary loan under 42 U.S.C. § 1452 . It is unclear whether Sedlock considered it a grant or a loan.”
Charles C. Haffner III & the N. Trust Co., as Executors of the Will of Charles C. Haffner, Jr., Deceased v. United States, 757 F.2d 920 (7th Cir. 1985). “413, 416 (1949), 42 U.S.C. § 1452 (g), which applied to obligations issued pursuant to the 1949 Act.”
Haynes v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 754 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “) at 45-53; see generally 42 U.S.C. § 1452 (b). The Mortgage covered a piece of property in Buffalo, New York, which borrowers rehabilitated and maintained as a liquor business known as Henry and Mick’s Place (the property).”
Feliciano v. Romney, 363 F. Supp. 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “as seed money to commence rehabilitation of certain buildings on sites 5, 11 and 18, which was to be repaid when tiie developer obtained its FIIA financing.”
Vilbig v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Dallas, 287 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. App. 1955). “Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S. C.A. § 1452 et seq.; whereas the present project was pursuant to Title 3 of U.”
Columbus Park Corp. v. Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 170 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “Petitioner also points out that under 42 USC § 1452 (a), the maximum period of time that its mortgage could be outstanding was 40 years; thus, petitioner appropriately urges that the 40-year period was included in the LDA not to conform with the over-all land development scheme…”
Park West Vill. Assocs. v. Abrams, 127 Misc. 2d 372 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984). “It is interesting that the maximum period of time for the repayment of the mortgage was set by statute at 40 years ( 42 USC § 1452 [a]), the same time period during which there could be, by virtue of the agreement, no changes in the project.”
Merge v. Sharott, 341 F.2d 989 (3rd Cir. 1965). “42 U.S.C. §§ 1452 , 1453 (1958). Subject to certain statutory requirements (See 42 U.”
Green Street Ass'n v. Daley, 373 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1967). “The work was partially financed by the federal government pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1452 . Thereafter *4 the Chicago Department of Urban Renewal, successor to the Community Conservation Board, prepared a redevelopment plan for the area pursuant to the provisions…”
United States v. Two Tracts of Land, 412 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1969). “We disagree — even if, which we would not regard as by any means certain, the New York Court of Appeals should ultimately follow the lower court decisions the claimants have cited to us.”
Edward v. City of Atl. City, 860 F.2d 560 (3rd Cir. 1988). “In 1965, an 80-acre tract of land bordering the Atlantic City boardwalk (“the Tract”) was declared an Urban Renewal *562 Area pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1452 (1976), and the Plan was adopted to regulate development of the Tract.”
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.