42 U.S.C. § 3750

Transferred

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

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 2009–2020 · leading case: City of Chicago v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018).
City of Chicago v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). “The Byrne JAG grant, named after a fallen New York City police officer, allocates substantial funds annually to provide for the needs of state and local law enforcement, including personnel, equipment, training, and other uses identified by those entities.”
In the Interest of J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). “The penalty is calculated as ten percent of grants allocated to states pursuant to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Programs, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3750 et seq., which in Pennsylvania constitutes approximately $1.”
City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “§ 10151 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750 ). Named after a fallen New York City police officer, the Byrne JAG grant supports state and local law enforcement efforts by providing additional funds for personnel, equipment, training, and other criminal justice needs.”
City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “§ 10151 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750 ). Named after a fallen New York City police officer, the JAG Program supports state and local law enforcement efforts by providing additional funds for personnel, equipment, training, and other criminal justice needs.”
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, 349 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “§ 10151 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750 ). Under the Byrne JAG program, the Attorney General makes grants to state and local governments through the Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs, a component of the OJP.”
United States v. Hernandez, 615 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the 10 percent reduction of funds to states for failure to comply with SORNA is only applied to funds that are available under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“Justice Assistance Grants”), 42 U.S.C. § 3750 et seq. The Justice Assistance…”
Does v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 3d 672 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “For Michigan to comply with SORNA and receive full funding under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3750 et seq., Michigan must “substantially implement” SORNA.”
San Bernardino Cnty. Child. & Fam. Servs. Dep't v. R.B., 222 Cal. App. 4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) At the end of the implementation period, a jurisdiction that failed to substantially implement the title would lose 10 percent of the funds otherwise paid to the states under the Edward Byme Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program ( 42 U.S.C. § 3750 et seq.). ( 42 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Talada, 631 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D.W. Va 2009). “§ 16925 , “For any fiscal year after the end of the period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement this subchapter shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal…”
City of Chicago v. William P. Barr (7th Cir. 2020). “(formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750 ). Previously, the district court granted a preliminary injunction as to two conditions—known as the notice and access condi- tions—imposed by the Attorney General on the FY 2017 Byrne JAG grant applicants.”
City of Chicago v. William P. Barr (7th Cir. 2020). “(formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750 ). Previously, the district court granted a preliminary injunction as to two conditions—known as the notice and access condi- tions—imposed by the Attorney General on the FY 2017 Byrne JAG grant applicants.”
City of Chicago v. William P. Barr (7th Cir. 2020). “(formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750 ). Previously, the district court granted a preliminary injunction as to two conditions—known as the notice and access conditions—imposed by the Attorney General on the FY 2017 Byrne JAG grant applicants.”
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.