42 U.S.C. § 4628
State acting as agent for Federal program
Whenever real property is acquired by a State agency at the request of a Federal agency for a Federal program or project, such acquisition shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed an acquisition by the Federal agency having authority over such program or project.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Jose F. Olivares v. Winston Martin, Dir., San Antonio Dev. Corp., 555 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1977).
Jose F. Olivares v. Winston Martin, Dir., San Antonio Dev. Corp., 555 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1977). “State agencies acting as the agent for federal programs are considered “federal agencies,” see 42 U.S.C. § 4628 (1970), so the Act includes actions by San Antonio Development Agency.”
Moorer v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 417 F. Supp. 1261 (W.D. Mo. 1976). “[ 42 U.S.C. § 4628 ] 20 . That section provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other law, the head of a Federal agency shall not approve any grant to, or contract or agreement with, a State agency, under which Federal financial assistance will be available to pay all or part of…”
Peoples Apparel, Ltd., 226 Ct. Cl. 515 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “42 U.S.C. § 4628 names the state agency as agent for the United States when the agency acquires property for a federal program or project.”
Parlane Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Caspar Weinberger, 513 F.2d 835 (1st Cir. 1975). “Compare the definition of “agent” in 42 U.S.C. § 4628 . 2 . Parlane cites language in a committee report made three years after enactment to the effect that HEW’s failure to provide relocation assistance to it violated the original intent of the Act, H.”
City of New Orleans Ex Rel. New Orleans Aviation Bd. v. a Portion of Square 205, 866 F. Supp. 969 (E.D. La. 1994). “There is no claim that NOAB is seeking expropriation on behalf of the FAA for a program or project undertaken by the FAA.”
Kunz v. FAA (10th Cir. 2025). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4628 (“Whenever real property is acquired by a State agency at the request of a Federal agency for a Federal program or project, such acquisition shall, for the purposes of th[e] [Relocation Act], be deemed an acquisition by the Federal agency having authority…”
Justin Wayne Dale v. Missouri Highways & Transp. Comm'n, Respondent-respondent., 442 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). “010[J” The Commission concluded that it had “jurisdiction of this cause under 42 U.S.C. §§ 4628 , 4630, 4633 and § 226.”
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.