Notes of Decisions
Greater Houston P'ship v. Ken Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2015).
“Here, GHP did not segregate funds, and it argued that such segregation would be logistically impossible. . The federal program is codified at 42 U.”
Casillas v. State, 733 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
“, repealed, 42 U.S.C.A. § 9912 (West 1983). Of the $419,000 grant, $150,000 was originally designated to establish an equity loan fund, for purposes of lending “seed” *160 money to farmworkers who wanted to start their own businesses.”
Amaya v. State, 733 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
“, repealed, 42 U.S.C.A. § 9912 (West 1983). Of the $419,000 grant, $150,000 was originally designated to establish an equity loan fund, for purposes of lending “seed” money to farmworkers who wanted to start their own businesses.”
Bankston v. Bd. of Ethics, 715 So. 2d 1181 (La. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 9912 (a) (West 1995). Prior to its repeal, section 2790(a) of the Economic Opportunity Act stated, "A community action agency shall be .”
Rogers v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 39 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 9912 (a). Because the statute was repealed on the same day the Director was unable to fund plaintiffs, the Director’s inability to fund plaintiffs could not violate the repealed statutory provisions.”
Rogers v. Ink, 766 F.2d 430 (10th Cir. 1985).
“42 U.S.C. § 9912 (a). I R. 254-55. Second, the funding decision did not deprive plaintiffs of due process of law.”
Casillas v. Pecos Cnty. Cmty. Action Agency, 792 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990).
“See 42 U.S.C.A. § 9912 (a). The purpose of this legislation was to deemphasize the role of the federal government in distributing funds and to build the role of state and local entities.”
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.