42 U.S.C. § 1521
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases, 1941–2010 · leading case: United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the Cnty. of Fairfax, 345 U.S. 344 (1953).
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the Cnty. of Fairfax, 345 U.S. 344 (1953). “It was brought under the authority of Title II, § 202 of the Act of June 28, 1941, 55 Stat. 361 , [1] and a rider on the Appropriation Act of July 15, 1943, 57 Stat.”
State v. Stonybrook, Inc., 181 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1962). “1125 , as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1521 . The units were constructed under the supervision of the Bridgeport housing authority and were operated for the government by that authority until June 30, 1943, when the newly established Stratford housing authority took over the operation…”
Pub. Hous. Admin. v. Bristol Twp., 146 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. Pa. 1957). “These amendatory Acts make clear that 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 , which is primarily relied upon by the plaintiff, expired on July 1, 1953.”
Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., 365 A.2d 1093 (Conn. 1976). “2d 227 , are cases involving government housing which, pursuant to the express terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1521 (b), are immune from federal, state, and municipal building regulations.”
George H. Evans & Co. v. United States, 169 F.2d 500 (3rd Cir. 1948). “” 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 . Practical considerations prevented the Administrator from entertaining any hope so sanguine as to expect no show of resistance from the municipalities wishing to enforce their ordinances.”
United States v. City of Chester, 144 F.2d 415 (3rd Cir. 1944). “1125 as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 . 6 Paragraph 14 of the answer, appendix p.”
Prince Heyward v. Pub. Hous. Admin., 238 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1956). “Insofar as the complaint challenges acts of PHA in connection with Lanham Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 et seq. national defense housing projects, we think the action was properly dismissed for the reason that it is a suit against a federal agency which is not subject to be sued.”
United States v. City of Philadelphia, 56 F. Supp. 862 (E.D. Pa. 1944). “1125 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 et seq., must comply with local building regulations.”
United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, 141 F. Supp. 300 (D. Wyo. 1956). “1125 , as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 et seq. At the time of the original taking, the land was owned by Maude B.”
John C. Arp & Mildred K. Arp v. United States, 244 F.2d 571 (10th Cir. 1957). “Rather than return the property, the Government, relying on the Lanham Act as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1521 et seq., especially § 1585(a), filed a supplemental complaint in the original proceeding for condemnation and a declaration of taking of the fee title to the tract in…”
Madeline Bosely v. City of Euclid, 496 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1974). “42 U.S.C. § 1521 . The City purchased this and another project in 1956 for a sum in excess of six million dollars.”
Chatlos v. Brown, 136 F.2d 490 (Emer. Ct. App. 1943). “1125 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1521 et seq., and the National Housing Act, 55 Stat.”
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.