42 U.S.C. § 9904
Establishment of block grant program
The Secretary is authorized to establish a community services block grant program and make grants through the program to States to ameliorate the causes of poverty in communities within the States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1982–2000 · leading case: Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan, 780 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan, 780 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “See also 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(t)(B)(iv) (1982) (states required to certify that Community Services Block Grant Act funds are used to assist low-income participants to obtain "adequate housing and a suitable living environment”).”
Wilkins Ex Rel. United States v. Ohio, 885 F. Supp. 1055 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “Plaintiff further asserts that defendants State of Ohio, ODOD, Jakeway, Lombardi and Garber prepared and submitted applications to HHS for funds under the Block Grant Program in which they certified that the funds would be used for the purposes set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (a)…”
Accion Soc. De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Norberto Viera Perez, Etc., 831 F.2d 365 (1st Cir. 1987). “at 4850 ; 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(2)(A)(i) (1982). 2 The Act also provided that during and after fiscal year 1983, states were to use at least ninety percent of CSBG funds to provide antipoverty programs through political subdivisions of the state or through nonprofit private…”
Conecuh-Monroe Cmty. Action Agency v. Otis R. Bowen, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 852 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(2)(A) (Supp. II 1984).”
Kankakeeland Cmty. Action Prog., Inc. v. Dep't of Com. & Cmty. Affairs, 557 N.E.2d 277 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). “42 U.S.C. §9904 (c)(ll) (1986). On February 28, 1986, KCAP requested an administrative hearing.”
Lceoc, Inc. v. Greer, 735 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 2000). “, 42 U.S.C.A. § 9904 (West 1995). [3] The Capital Improvement Board, on the other hand, does not select its own elected-official members; instead the city and county appoint them.”
Rural Alaska Cmty. Action Prog. v. Smith, 847 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1988). “42 U.S. C. § 9904. The state must also submit to DHHS a plan for the proposed use of the CSBG funds.”
Pierce v. Montgomery Cnty. Opportunity Bd., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 965 (E.D. Pa. 1995). “See 42 U.S.C. § 9904 . With her Brief in Opposition, Pierce attached several documents, including her own affidavit and another’s deposition transcript.”
Palmiter v. Action, Inc., 548 F. Supp. 1166 (N.D. Ind. 1982). “Thus, under Indiana law the funds received by IOCSA (now IDACS) and now on deposit in Action’s accounts with the garnishee-defendant Bank are appropriated exclusively for the purposes provided in the original federal grants as set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(1): (c) As part of…”
New York State Ass'n. of Cmty. Action Agency Bd. Members v. Shaffer, 119 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). “Some 71 agencies were awarded grants by respondent, of which almost half failed to meet Federal statutory qualifications in that their governing boards were not composed of the required ratio of elected public officials, representatives of the poor and of other major interested…”
In re Joliet-Will Cnty. Cmty. Action Agency, 847 F.2d 430 (7th Cir. 1988). “See 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (g). On balance the bankruptcy solution has little to recommend it.”
Morse v. Martineau, 685 F. Supp. 860 (D.N.H. 1988). “In addition, plaintiffs alleged that defendant Tess Petix either misinterpreted 42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(7) or was enforcing an unconstitutional statutory provision.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 9904(d)(1) — 1 case
Conecuh-Monroe Cmty. Action Agency v. Otis R. Bowen, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 852 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “42 U.S.C. § 9904 (c)(2)(A) (Supp. II 1984).”
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.