U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 8A— SLUM CLEARANCE, URBAN RENEWAL, AND FARM HOUSING › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— SLUM CLEARANCE AND URBAN RENEWAL › Part Part A— Urban Renewal Projects, Demolition Programs, and Code Enforcement Programs

42 U.S.C. § 1452b

Repealed. Pub. L. 101–625, title II, § 289(b), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4128

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1972–1991 · leading case: Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). · cites it 11× “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984). · cites it 2× “790 , codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1452b (1976 ed. and Supp. V).”
Guadamuz v. Ash, 368 F. Supp. 1233 (D.D.C. 1973). · cites it 8× “” 43 The fiscal 1973 appropriations act provides : “For the revolving fund established pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S. C. § 1452b), $70,000,000, to remain available until expended.”
C.P. Squire Contractors, Inc. v. The United States of Am. v. Dist. of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, Third Party, 716 F.2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “Those issues, as well as the nature of the case, are set forth in the order of the court which we quote in pertinent part as follows: “This case concerns the extent of defendant’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. The case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary…”
C.P. Squire Contractors, Inc., 224 Ct. Cl. 765 (Ct. Cl. 1980). · cites it 8× “This case concerns the extent of defendant’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. The case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
Malis v. Hills, 588 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1978). · cites it 6× “Appellant brought this action against the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when the Secretary did not approve her application for a housing rehabilitation loan pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 1 Appellant…”
City of New Haven, Connecticut v. United States, 634 F. Supp. 1449 (D.D.C. 1986). · cites it 2× “The final program affected was created by Section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b (1982 & Supp. I 1983) (“Section 312”).”
Park West Vill. Assocs. v. Abrams, 127 Misc. 2d 372 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984). · cites it 2× “It provided (42 USC § 1452b) that loans may be made both to owners and tenants of property for rehabilitation, and included owner-occupied property.”
Melton v. United States, 488 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1980). “Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was contacted by the Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) 1 which advised her that, because her property was located in the Shaw Urban Renewal Area, she was entitled to a so-called section 312 housing and urban development loan, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b,…”
Ivey v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 428 F. Supp. 1337 (N.D. Ga. 1977). “On December 10, 1969, plaintiff, Jettie Ivey, entered into a credit transaction with defendants, United States of America and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in order to obtain a loan under section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §…”
McCullough v. Redevelopment Auth., 522 F.2d 858 (3rd Cir. 1975). · cites it 9× “16 Hence, even under the liberal terms of government-financed 42 U.S.C. § 1452b loans, it was found that some property owners were unable to bear the financial burden involved in rehabilitation.”
Huntington Branch, Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Town of Huntington, 668 F. Supp. 762 (E.D.N.Y 1987). “The section 312 program for housing rehabilitation loans is set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1452b, as amended.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(a) — 2 cases
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
Guadamuz v. Ash, 368 F. Supp. 1233 (D.D.C. 1973). “” 43 The fiscal 1973 appropriations act provides : “For the revolving fund established pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S. C. § 1452b), $70,000,000, to remain available until expended.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(a)(2) — 1 case
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(a)(3) — 1 case
Malis v. Hills, 588 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1978). “Appellant brought this action against the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when the Secretary did not approve her application for a housing rehabilitation loan pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 1 Appellant…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(a)(l)(A) — 1 case
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(c) — 1 case
Guadamuz v. Ash, 368 F. Supp. 1233 (D.D.C. 1973). “” 43 The fiscal 1973 appropriations act provides : “For the revolving fund established pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S. C. § 1452b), $70,000,000, to remain available until expended.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(d) — 1 case
Guadamuz v. Ash, 368 F. Supp. 1233 (D.D.C. 1973). “” 43 The fiscal 1973 appropriations act provides : “For the revolving fund established pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S. C. § 1452b), $70,000,000, to remain available until expended.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(e) — 3 cases
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
C.P. Squire Contractors, Inc., 224 Ct. Cl. 765 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “This case concerns the extent of defendant’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. The case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
Malis v. Hills, 588 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1978). “Appellant brought this action against the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when the Secretary did not approve her application for a housing rehabilitation loan pursuant to section 312 of the Housing Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 1 Appellant…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(f) — 4 cases
C.P. Squire Contractors, Inc. v. The United States of Am. v. Dist. of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, Third Party, 716 F.2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1983). “Those issues, as well as the nature of the case, are set forth in the order of the court which we quote in pertinent part as follows: “This case concerns the extent of defendant’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. The case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary…”
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
C.P. Squire Contractors, Inc., 224 Ct. Cl. 765 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “This case concerns the extent of defendant’s liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. The case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
McCullough v. Redevelopment Auth., 522 F.2d 858 (3rd Cir. 1975). “16 Hence, even under the liberal terms of government-financed 42 U.S.C. § 1452b loans, it was found that some property owners were unable to bear the financial burden involved in rehabilitation.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1452b(g) — 1 case
Rousseau v. City of Philadelphia, 589 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Pa. 1984). “Beginning in 1977, plaintiff, undertook the rehabilitation effort in question with the assistance of low interest loan funds made available by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop *964 ment (HUD) under the Section 312 loan program, 42 U.S.C. § 1452b. 2 Although a private…”
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.