Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case:
Long v. State of S.D., 2017 S.D. 78, 904 N.W.2d 358.
Long v. State of S.D., 2017 S.D. 78, 904 N.W.2d 358.
· cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 4655 . Necessary expenses are defined, in part, in 42 U.”
City of Austin v. Travis Cnty. Landfill Co., 25 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000).
· cites it 4× “42 U.S.C.A. § 4655 (emphasis added). By its terms, the Uniform Act prohibits a federal agency from approving any federally funded project in which a political subdivision of a state acquires real property without assuring that the acquiring political subdivision will (1) follow…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Little, 2004 OK 74, 100 P.3d 707.
“” The provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 4655 state; (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the head of a Federal agency shall not approve any program or project or any grant to, or contract or agreement with, an acquiring agency under which Federal financial assistance will be available to…”
Barnhart v. Brinegar, 362 F. Supp. 464 (W.D. Mo. 1973).
· cites it 3× “91-646, § 305, 42 U.S.C. § 4655 (1970). 3 . Id. § 301, 42 U.”
Charles Eugene Rhodes v. City of Chicago in Trust, 516 F.2d 1373 (7th Cir. 1975).
· cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 4655 provides: “Notwithstanding any other law, the head of a Federal agency shall not approve any program or project or any other grant to, or contract or agreement with, a State agency under which Federal financial assistance will be available to pay all or part of…”
Comm'r of Transp. v. Rocky Mountain, LLC, 894 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2006).
“42 U.S.C. §§ 4655 and 4604. 22 *719 The Connecticut legislature responded to the passage of the federal uniform relocation act by enacting the state relocation act, § 8-266 et seq.”
Lawson v. State ex rel. Sec'y of the Dep't of Transp., 91 A.3d 544 (Del. 2014).
“58 Del. Laws ch. 413 (1972). The federal statute specified that federal funding would be withheld from a state unless that state provided for reimbursement of "necessary expenses” as specified in the federal reimbursement provisions ( 42 U.”
Est. of Kirkpatrick v. City of Olathe, 215 P.3d 561 (Kan. 2009).
“The provision of the Federal Act that guided the district court’s decision in this case is 42 U.S.C. § 4655 (a)(2) (2006), which states in relevant part: *574 “(a) Notwithstanding any other law, the head of a Federal agency shall not approve any program or project or any grant…”
City of Columbia v. Douglas M. Costle, 710 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Protection Agency appeals from a judgment of the district court ruling that the City of Columbia, South Carolina, need not comply with the federal real property acquisition procedures, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4655 and 4651, in connection with an EPA construction grant for a sewer line to a…”
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.