Notes of Decisions
United States v. City of Jackson MS, 359 F.3d 727 (5th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 6× “CA could have intervened under 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (e), but it did not — probably because the City threw in the towel even before the bell sounded for round one.”
Garcia v. Brockway, 526 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Were we to adopt the dissent's interpretation, we would make it impossible, or at least more difficult, for the Attorney General to bring a design-and-construction claim against builders under 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a), because design and construction of an FHA-noncompliant building…”
United States v. Gritz Bros. P'ship, 155 F.R.D. 639 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
· cites it 31× “” Among other relief requested, the United States seeks “a civil penalty against the defendants in an amount of money authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (d)(1)(C), in order to vindicate the public interest.”
United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Idaho 2003).
· cites it 8× “Defendants contend that the magistrate judge erred in finding that (1) Plaintiffs claims raise an issue of “general public importance” sufficient to support the Plaintiffs action under 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a), (2) Plaintiffs claims for compensatory damages are timely under the…”
United States v. Rent Am., Corp., 734 F. Supp. 474 (S.D. Fla. 1990).
· cites it 17× “This initial complaint sought injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 3614 (d)(1)(A) (West Supp.1989), monetary damages for victims of the discrimination pursuant to 42 U.”
United States v. Inc. Vill. of Island Park, 888 F. Supp. 419 (E.D.N.Y 1995).
· cites it 5× “The government’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Housing Act is premised on 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a). This court has previously held that no statute of limitations applies to a suit for injunctive relief under this provision.”
United States v. East River Hous. Corp., 90 F. Supp. 3d 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Finally, in addition to its claims on behalf of Aaron, Eisenberg, and Gilbert, the Government alleges that East River’s conduct constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights granted by the FHA, and/or a denial to a group of persons of rights…”
United States v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 F. Supp. 2d 819 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
· cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a). The Government has filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its reasonable accommodation and 1998 Zoning Code claims.”
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995).
· cites it 2× “Even if the new law prevents Edmonds from enforcing its rule against Oxford House, a live controversy remains because the United States seeks damages and civil penalties from Edmonds, under 42 U. S. C. §§ 3614 (d)(1)(B) and (C), for conduct occurring prior to enactment of the…”
United States v. Marsten Apts., Inc., 175 F.R.D. 257 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
· cites it 8× “Procedural Background The United States of America brings this action pursuant to the Fair Housing Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a). The United States alleges that defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and familial…”
Fed. Ins. v. Steadfast Ins., 209 Cal. App. 4th 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “” ( 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a).) A “ ‘[discriminatory housing practice’ ” under the Fair Housing Act is “an act that is unlawM under section 3604, 3605, 3606, or 3617 of this title.”
United States v. Gumbaytay, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (M.D. Ala. 2011).
· cites it 13× “§§ 1331 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. § 3614 (a). The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and the Court finds adequate allegations in support of both personal jurisdiction and venue.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a) — 1 case
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.