42 U.S.C. § 4637
Repealed. Pub. L. 100–17, title IV, § 415, Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 255
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1973–1992 · leading case: Alexander v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 441 U.S. 39 (1979).
Alexander v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 441 U.S. 39 (1979). “1902 , 42 U. S. C. § 4637 (emphasis added). Inclusion of this special provision, to ensure that certain persons displaced by action other than an acquisition of property could still qualify for relocation benefits, reflects Congress’ understanding that such persons would not be…”
Cole v. Harris, 571 F.2d 590 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Similarly misguided is the dissent’s reliance on § 217 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4637 (1970). The dissent concludes that there would have been no need to enact § 217 if Congress had intended the notice clause to have its common sense meaning, since persons displaced under the…”
Moorer v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 417 F. Supp. 1261 (W.D. Mo. 1976). “[ 42 U.S.C. § 4637 ] HUD contends that this section is a specific exception to the general requirement that a person be displaced by a federal acquisition or a federally financed state acquisition.”
Feliciano v. Romney, 363 F. Supp. 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “Although 42 U.S.C. § 4637 contemplates that persons like plaintiffs are displaced persons and therefore entitled to some benefits of the Uniform Act, the benefits of § 4625 appear to be limited tp cases involving projects undertaken by the federal government.”
Peggy Dawson Etc. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 592 F.2d 1292 (5th Cir. 1979). “The plaintiff’s equal protection contention and her argument arising out of 42 U.S.C. § 4637 were also correctly disposed of by the district court in its opinion.”
Devines v. Maier, 494 F. Supp. 992 (E.D. Wis. 1980). “Plaintiffs also contend that they are entitled to benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 4637 . That section provides that persons who move from their dwellings as result of any program which receives funding under Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949 “shall be deemed to be displaced as the…”
Moorer v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 561 F.2d 175 (8th Cir. 1977). “42 U.S.C. § 4637 . . But see footnote 3. .”
Forman's Dairy Palm Nursery v. Dep't of Transp., State, 608 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). “, not an eminent domain acquisition) could not receive relocation assistance unless the displaced person had resided in a Model Cities, Urban Renewal or Neighborhood Development Program covered by 42 U.S.C. § 4637 . Neither decision can be fairly read to mean that relocation…”
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.