Section 4625
- Citation
- Section 4625
- Parent Document
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1977-11-14
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7891523/cole-v-harris/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (158)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 4625
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
- Section 205
Full Text
1,103 charsThe District Court ruled that all persons who were tenants of Sky Tower on September 27, 1974, and who vacated their apartments as a result of HUD’s notice, were entitled to a prorated portion of the benefits provided under Section 204 of the Act34 for the period between the date of their move and August 1, 1975 (or the date on which any such person actually returned to Sky Tower, if earlier than August 1, 1975). August 1 was selected as the cut-off date because by that date all former tenants had been given the opportunity to return to Sky Tower pursuant to the preliminary injunction. As we understand the District Court’s order, the Act’s moving expenses benefit and its requirement that replacement housing be available are fully applicable to appellees; however, under the order appellees are entitled to only a prorated portion of the Act’s rent benefits. As noted supra,35 under the terms of the Act these latter benefits may amount to a maximum of $4000 over a four-year period. Under the District Court’s formula, however, these benefits would be limited to approximately $750 per tenant.