DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 4625

Citation
Section 4625
Parent Document
Cole v. Harris, 187 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (1977)
Effective Date
1977-11-14
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7891523/cole-v-harris/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

562 chars 
In sum, if this acquisition is understood as having been involuntary, and if the Second and Seventh Circuits’ definition of “project” as excluding such involuntary acquisitions is accepted, then appellees are not “displaced persons” within the meaning of the “acquisitions” clause in the definition. For to the extent that appellees can be said to have moved from Sky Tower as a result of the HUD acquisition, that acquisition was not “for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency” as contemplated by the Uniform Relocation Act. III. THE NOTICE CLAUSE