42 U.S.C. § 3212

Maintenance of standards

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

All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects assisted by the Secretary under this chapter shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40. The Secretary shall not extend any financial assistance under this chapter for such a project without first obtaining adequate assurance that these labor standards will be maintained upon the construction work. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this provision, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267), and section 3145 of title 40.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1969–1985 · leading case: Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, 477 F. Supp. 444 (E.D. Pa. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, 477 F. Supp. 444 (E.D. Pa. 1979). · cites it 2× “Lukens contends that EDA’s approval of the lease guarantee was beyond the scope of EDA’s authority and that it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law” in that EDA: 1) violated the unfair competition provision of the Act, § 702…”

Cf&i Steel Corp., a Colorado Corp. v. Econ. Dev. Admin., 624 F.2d 136 (10th Cir. 1980). “§ 3212 , provides: “No financial assistance under this chapter shall be extended to any project when the result would be to increase the production of goods, materials, or commodities, or the availability of services or facilities, when there is not sufficient demand for such…”

Lukens Steel Co. v. Klutznick, 629 F.2d 881 (3rd Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “See 42 U.S.C. § 3212 ; 13 C.F.R. § 309.2 (1980).”

Levisa Stone Corp. & Johnson Bros. Limestone Co. v. Elkhorn Stone Co., Inc., 411 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir. 1969). “702 Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 3212 . On September 29, 1967 Appellee and the Government, in behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, moved to dismiss the actions.”

Van Hoven Co. v. Stans, 319 F. Supp. 180 (D. Minnesota 1970). “” 42 U.S.C. § 3212 . Although numerous affidavits have been submitted which indicate that the packing plants presently operating in South St.”

Afton Alps, Inc. v. United States, 392 F. Supp. 543 (D. Minnesota 1974). “42 U.S.C. § 3212 . The pláintiffs contend that the Assistant Secretary has not properly interpreted or applied Section 702, and that he relied upon factually erroneous information in reaching his conclusion.”

Coalport, Inc. v. Baldridge, 771 F.2d 174 (6th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “§ 3131 (a)(1)(B), and because the agency’s findings fail to demonstrate any good faith recognition of the limitations Congress placed upon such funding in 42 U.S.C. § 3212 , we vacate the judgment of the district court upholding the grant and direct a remand to the EDA for…”

Van Hoven Co. v. Stans, 326 F. Supp. 827 (D. Minnesota 1971). “But plaintiffs urge that one section of the law, 42 U.S.C. § 3212 , prohibits a loan such as this because “* * * there is not sufficient demand for such * * * facilities, to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive commercial or industrial enterprises,” and point to…”

Lukens Steel Co. v. Kreps, 482 F. Supp. 736 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “Lukens contends that the EDA’s approval of the lease guarantee was unlawful in that the EDA: (1) violated the unfair competition provision of the Act, § 702 ( 42 U.S.C. § 3212 ); (2) violated the 15% contribution provision of EDA’s regulations, 13 CFR § 306.”

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.