42 U.S.C. § 2781
Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, § 683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases, 1972–2007 · leading case: United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807 (1976).
United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807 (1976). “690 , 42 U. S. C. § 2781 et seq., was passed to “stimulate a better focusing of all available local, State, private, and Federal resources upon the goal of enabling low-income families, and low-income individuals .”
Erma W. Hines v. Cenla Cmty. Action Comm., Inc., 474 F.2d 1052 (5th Cir. 1973). “The basic purpose of community action agencies is stated in 42 U.S.C. § 2781 . 6 *1057 Employees of community action agencies are not mentioned as beneficiaries of the Act in this Congressional statement of purpose.”
Comprehensive Grp. Health Servs. Bd. Directors v. Temple Univ. of the Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ., 363 F. Supp. 1069 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2781 (a)(4) (emphasis added).”
Robert E. Robison v. Wichita Falls & North Texas Cmty. Action Corp., Etc., 507 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1975). “Wichita is a nonprofit corporation organized under Texas law as an anti-poverty organization to qualify for Federal government funding under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2781 et seq. It is part of a national network of local community action groups designed…”
Bankston v. Bd. of Ethics, 715 So. 2d 1181 (La. 1998). “[8] The Economic Opportunity Act, formerly found at 42 U.S.C. § 2781 et seq., was repealed effective October 1, 1981, and the appropriation of funding for community action agencies is now governed by the Community Services Block Grants Act currently found at 42 U.”
State v. Smith, 357 So. 2d 505 (La. 1978). “508, 42 U.S.C. § 2781 , et seq., authorizes federal financial assistance for community action programs developed and conducted at the community level to combat poverty.”
Gilmore v. Salt Lake Cmty. Action Prog., 710 F.2d 632 (10th Cir. 1983). “These public officials serve on the board, not in an honorary or figurehead capacity, but rather to offer “services and assistance” as public officials, see EOA § 201(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. § 2781 (a)(5), in combating poverty, a public concern.”
Edlow Int'l Co. v. Nuklearna Elektrarna Krsko, 441 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1977). “Defendant, on the other hand, observes that the Yugoslav government does not subsidize NEK, holds no seats on the NEK board, and otherwise takes no direct hand in daily management of NEK operations. These factors are crucial to application of the so-called “control test.”
Enrique Cervantes v. Ramiro Guerra, 651 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1981). “§ 201(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 2781 (a)(4). The statute therefore requires private CAA’s to *976 be managed by a “governing board”, having at least one-third of its members “persons chosen in accordance with democratic selection procedures adequate to assure that they are…”
Thompson v. Cmty. Action of Greater Wilmington, Inc., 567 F. Supp. 1159 (D. Del. 1983). “See 42 U.S.C. § 2781 (a) (repealed) (congressional statement of purpose).”
Theriault v. Brennan, 488 F. Supp. 286 (D. Me. 1980). “42 U.S.C. § 2781 et seq. 10 . An emergency was defined by DCS as a household which was out of fuel or expected to run out within 24 hours.”
Lceoc, Inc. v. Greer, 699 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2781 (a). Under the statute, a community action agency is a “State or political subdivision of a State .”
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.