42 U.S.C. § 3766
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases, 1971–2002 · leading case: United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia
United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1978)
“and of § 518(c)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3766 (c)(1), and to protect certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New York City (1983)
“§ 1242 (Revenue Sharing Act); 42 U. S. C. § 3766 (c)(1) (Crime Control Act of 1973); 42 U.”
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Et Al., Defendants-Appellees (1979)
“1 We hold that the City did not carry its burden of demonstrating facts entitling it to “preliminary relief” within the meaning of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Safe Streets Act,” 42 U.S.C. § 3766 (c)(2)(E)) because the City did not meet even the…”
Shapp v. Sloan (1978)
“*479 The Legislature's action, which prevented use of federal funds granted to run the Office of the Special Prosecutor, established under Pennsylvania's LEAA plan, violates the Congressional plan to aid state executive authorities in promoting the effective administration and…”
Hiram B. Ely v. Richard W. Velde, Associate Administrator, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Natural Resources (1971)
“13 Finally, the LEAA places additional reliance on 42 U.S.C. § 3766 (a): Nothing contained in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over…”
Nazareth Gates v. John Collier, Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary (1980)
“§ 3612 (c) (1970); Crime Control Act of 1976 § 122(b), 42 U.S.C.A. § 3766 (c)(4)(B) (1976); Noise Control Act of 1972 § 12, 42 U.”
United States v. County of Hawaii (1979)
“Defendants base their motion on the grounds that 42 U.S.C. § 3766 (c) does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court to hear this suit or standing on the Attorney General to bring it; the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the…”
United States v. City of Philadelphia (1979)
“It is perfectly true that each of these statutes authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit against state or local government units when he has reason to believe that federally funded programs are being administered by these government units in a discriminatory manner.”
Brown v. New Haven Civil Service Board (1979)
“The sixth count claims a violation of the equal protection provision of the Connecticut Constitution, Art. I §§ 1 arid 20. In the seventh and eighth counts, plaintiffs claim violations of racial discrimination prohibitions in two statutes under which New Haven receives federal…”
United States v. City of Miami (1980)
“Moreover, the stan *1329 dards to be applied, at least in a suit in which the Attorney General’s authority is based on 42 U.S.C. § 3766 , are the same as those applied under Title VII.”
UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA and Harold W. Burgess, Appellees (1978)
“4 *1303 Although we sympathize with the task of the district court in trying to determine what Congress meant by the words “preliminary relief” as found in 42 U.S.C. § 3766 (c)(2)(E), we believe that the district court did not indicate clearly what law it was applying, much less…”
Thomas J. Donaghy v. City of Omaha, a Municipal Corporation, James Skinner, Chief of Police and P.J. Morgan, Mayor of Om (1991)
“In an amended com *1451 plaint, the Guardians alleged that although the OPD had used funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) in a discriminatory manner, the LEAA had continued to fund the OPD, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3766 . Senior Judge Richard E.”
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.