42 U.S.C. § 5303
Grants to States, units of general local government and Indian tribes; authorizations
The Secretary is authorized to make grants to States, units of general local government, and Indian tribes to carry out activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. For purposes of assistance under section 5306 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $4,168,000,000 for fiscal year 1994. Sums authorized pursuant to this section shall remain available until expended.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Guilliaem Aertsen v. Moon Landrieu, Etc., 637 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1980).
Guilliaem Aertsen v. Moon Landrieu, Etc., 637 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1980). “637 , 42 U.S.C. § 5303 (a)(1). Title II entitled “Assisted Housing,” amended the entire text of the United States Housing Act of 1937, Act of September 1, 1937, Pub.”
City of Hartford v. Towns of Glastonbury, 561 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1977). “One of the more recent block grant programs is that for “community developments grants,” authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, § 103, 42 U.S.C. § 5303 (Supp. V 1975). This appeal, apparently the first of its kind to be decided under the 1974 Act, 1…”
United States v. Martin Ole Gjerde, 110 F.3d 595 (8th Cir. 1997). “Although, as Gjerde emphasizes in his briefs, the HUD money was granted to the state, see 42 U.S.C. § 5303 , 7 that grant was subject to substantial federal regulation, see id.”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Chester, 413 F. Supp. 1299 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “42 U.S.C. § 5303 . The provisions of the HCDA most relevant to the present action are §§ 5304, 5309, and 5311.”
City of Boston v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 898 F.2d 828 (1st Cir. 1990). “See 42 U.S.C. § 5303 . 2 . Section 5311(a) provides, in full: If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under this chapter has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, the Secretary, until…”
Clark v. Richardson, 431 F. Supp. 105 (D.N.J. 1977). “, filed December 23, 1976), where petitioners sued to enjoin seven suburban communities from receiving or expending grants approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to a block grant program authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of…”
City of New Haven v. United States, 809 F.2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “Thus, while the appellees seek to void section 1013 in its entirety, they in effect challenge only the authority of the President to implement policy deferrals without prior congressional approval. . Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986, Pub.”
Penney v. Town of Middleton, 917 F. Supp. 87 (D.N.H. 1995). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 5303 , et. seq. (West 1995).”
Rumsey v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “” 42 U.S.C. § 5303 . Other courts reviewing CDBG funding disputes have noted that “[t]he municipal grantee of CDBG funds is largely in control of disbursement.”
United States v. Martin Gjerde (8th Cir. 1997). “) 11 the HUD money was granted to the state, see 42 U.S.C. § 5303 ,7 that grant was subject to substantial federal regulation, see id.”
Town of East Hartford v. Harris, 450 F. Supp. 512 (D.D.C. 1978). “, § 103, 42 U.S.C. § 5303 (Supp. V 1975). . Id., § 104, 42 U.”
Penney v. Middleton (D.N.H. 1995). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 5303 , et. sea. (West 1995).”
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.