42 U.S.C. § 1465
Repealed. Pub. L. 91–646, title II, § 220(a)(5), Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1903
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1968–1996 · leading case: Barnes v. Tarrytown Urban Renewal Agency, 338 F. Supp. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).
Barnes v. Tarrytown Urban Renewal Agency, 338 F. Supp. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). “She also sought 1 the convening of a three-judge court to pass on the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (e) and HUD regulation 24 C.”
United States v. Robert Alan Thomas (94-6648) & Carleen Thomas (94-6649), 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996). “The transportation as aforesaid of two or more copies of any publication or two or more of any article of the character described above, or a combined total of five such publications and articles, shall create a presumption that such publications or articles are intended for…”
Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1968). “788 -90, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (e) (Supp. 1967),-determinations with regard to relocation assistance payments may be made unreviewable.”
Alexander v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 441 U.S. 39 (1979). “788 , 42 U. S. C. § 1465 (1970 ed.), repealed by uncodified § 220 (a) (5) of the Relocation Act, 84 Stat.”
Edward R. Fountain v. The United States & Redevelopment Land Agency, 427 F.2d 759 (Ct. Cl. 1970). “§ 3074 , appears to be subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (e) (Supp. IV 1965-68) implemented by 24 C.”
Genanett Alexander v. U. S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. & Carla A. Hills, Sec'y, 555 F.2d 166 (7th Cir. 1977). “Prior to the enactment of URA, there appear to have been two major legislative provisions for handling most relocation benefits: the Amendments to the Federal Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1465 , which provided relocation assistance benefits to persons displaced by urban renewal…”
Graphic Arts Finishers, Inc. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 255 N.E.2d 793 (Mass. 1970). “…shall be final and conclusive for any purposes and not subject to redetermination by any court or any other officer.” 42 U. S. C. § 1465 (e) (1969).”
Merge v. Troussi, 394 F.2d 79 (3rd Cir. 1968). “The new provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 1465 , provided for additional relocation benefits and changed the definitions and standards governing the payments.”
Battison v. City of Niles, Ohio, 445 F. Supp. 1082 (N.D. Ohio 1977). “§ 1455 was formerly implemented by 42 U.S.C. § 1465 . The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 replaced 42 U.”
Stand. Mattress Co. v. City of Hartford, 329 A.2d 613 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1974). “789 , § 114 (d); 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (e) (1970); and also by the absence of any statutory authorization for such review in this court, and (2) that the federal agency involved, the department of housing and urban development, is an indispensable party to the litigation.”
Devines v. Maier, 665 F.2d 138 (7th Cir. 1981). “Significantly, the URA repealed § 310 of the Housing Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (1970 ed.), that had extended benefits to persons displaced from urban renewal areas by code enforcement activities.”
Barnes v. Tarrytown Urban Renewal Agency, 338 F. Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). “They also seek the convening of a three-judge statutory court in order to pass upon the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (e) and HUD regulation 24 C.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1465(e) — 1 case
Barnes v. Tarrytown Urban Renewal Agency, 338 F. Supp. 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). “She also sought 1 the convening of a three-judge court to pass on the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 1465 (e) and HUD regulation 24 C.”
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.