42 U.S.C. § 2701
Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, § 683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases, 1969–2005 · leading case: United States v. William Ruffin, 613 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1979).
United States v. William Ruffin, 613 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1979). “” The statute was part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2701 (the “Act”), an omnibus antipoverty law designed to provide several types of aid programs to be administered at state and local levels with massive federal fund assistance.”
Jimmy Ginn v. F. David Mathews, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 533 F.2d 477 (9th Cir. 1976). “It operated the Project Head-start Program in San Francisco, which was a “community action program” within the meaning of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. Project Headstart was created by statute, 42 U.”
United States v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 432 F.3d 161 (3rd Cir. 2005). “3d at 1190 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2701 (31)). This language is identical to the language in CERCLA's definition of removal action, which we interpret to encompass oversight costs.”
Martinez v. Socoma Companies, Inc., 521 P.2d 841 (Cal. 1974). “" ( 42 U.S.C. § 2701 .) [7] In providing for special impact programs, Congress declared that such programs were directed to the solution of critical problems existing in particular neighborhoods having especially large concentrations of low-income persons, and that the programs…”
Nabke v. U. S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 520 F. Supp. 5 (W.D. Mich. 1981). “brought no change in the situation, and defendant brought this suit against these two defendants for damages in the amount of $150,000, again alleging discrimination and misuse of federal funds, in violation of the Economic Opportunity Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., the Civil…”
Red Sch. House, Inc. v. Off. of Econ. Opportunity, 386 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Minnesota 1974). “OEO is an agency of the United States Government, established by Congress in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2701 , et seq. The statutory goal of the agency is: [T]o eliminate the paradox of poverty by opening to everyone the opportunity for…”
Wood v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 481 P.2d 823 (Cal. 1971). “[1] The public policy of the United States was stated in the preamble to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 ( 42 U.S.C. § 2701 ): "Although the economic well-being and prosperity of the United States have progressed to a level surpassing any achieved in world history, and…”
Ashley v. Superior Court, 521 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1974). “Griswold, Solicitor General of the United States, stated that the legal services rendered these plaintiffs come within the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2701 , et seq.; that the office of legal services has been established and financed by the Congress…”
United States v. Robert M. Burton, Peter Balogun, 871 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1989). “In fact, through the Economic Opportunity Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2701 -2996k (1982 & Supp. II 1984), Congress explicitly encouraged community action agencies to establish community development committees — non-profit subsidiaries that could explore and cultivate local economic…”
Theriault v. Brennan, 488 F. Supp. 286 (D. Me. 1980). “The Facts For the past four winters Maine has participated in ECAP programs conducted under the auspices of the federal Community Services Administration (CSA) pursuant to the powers granted that agency by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. In each…”
Kelley v. Action for Boston Cmty. Dev., Inc., 419 F. Supp. 511 (D. Mass. 1976). “Federal Officials Twelve years ago, the Congress of the United States enacted a program designed to “eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty” by passing the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2701 *526 et seq. The legislation provided for a variety of…”
Ramos v. Lamm, 539 F. Supp. 730 (D. Colo. 1982). “§ 1515 (d) Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Pub.”
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.