42 U.S.C. § 8

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)Section 3.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 3 of this Act $5,000,000 per year for fiscal years 1997 through 2021. Of these amounts, up to $1,000,000 in each fiscal year may be awarded to institutions of higher education, including United States-Mexico binational research foundations and interuniversity research programs established by the two countries, for research grants without any cost-sharing requirement.“(b)Section 4.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 4 of this Act $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026, in addition to the authorization of appropriations for projects in section 4(a)(2)(F).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Lyon v. Burton, 2000 UT 19 (Utah 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lyon v. Burton, 2000 UT 19 (Utah 2000). · cites it 2× “For many decades, the high cost of medical expenses, lost wages, and property damages *634 resulting from such accidents has been mitigated by spreading those costs to the motoring public by insurance and by the doctrine of respondeat superior.”

Midland Mgmt. Co. v. Helgason, 630 N.E.2d 836 (Ill. 1994). “Defendant’s tenancy was subsidized under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (Section 8) ( 42 U.S.C. § 8 (1991)). As a result of the subsidy, defendant was required to pay a total monthly rent amount of $6.”

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. Azar (D.D.C. 2020). “See 42 U.S.C. §8§ 1396a, 1396b. Some beneficiaries are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.”

Soulik v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Or. 2020). “(“Plaintiff”) filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §8 405(g) and 1383(c) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), to review the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner’”) who denied her supplemental security income (“Benefits”).”

Hemby v. Kijakazi (D.S.D. 2024). “42 U.S.C. §8§ 416, 423(d)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R.”

Laber v. Kijakazi (D.S.D. 2024). “42 U.S.C. §8§ 416, 423(d)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R.”

Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Va. 2025). “Scruton (“ALJ”) erred by (1) failing to properly assess her physical impairments and perform a function-by- function analysis and (2) failing to properly assess her subjective allegations.”

Lopez v. JC Penney (E.D.N.C. 2025). “The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiff's first claim, for discrimination based upon national origin and race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §8§ 2000e et seq. (“ Title VII” ), pursuant to 28 U.”

Richard H., II v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D.N.Y. 2026). “Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:23-CV-652 (BKS/CFH), 2024 WL 4217371 , at *1 (N.”

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.