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
2,176 charsApparently, the district court considered the involuntary nature of HUD’s acquisition irrelevant where, as here, the person moves “as the result of the written order of the acquiring agency to vacate real property, for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency,” even though it might be relevant where (as in Caramico) the tenants move “as a result of the acquisition of * * * real property * * * for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency * * * However, the Second Circuit made clear that in Caramico it was interpreting the phrase common to both clauses, “for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency” rather than the term “acquisition” which appears only in one clause. Moreover, there is no basis for distinguishing between the nature of the acquisition in the two provisions. An “acquiring agency” in the “notice” clause should refer to the same type of acquisition as does the “acquisition” clause.10 [10 There is, of course, a presumption that the same word used in different parts of a single statute is intended to have the same meaning each time. Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 87, 55 S.Ct. 50, 79 L.Ed. 211 (1934)]. The volitional nature of the acquisition is the same for both classes of displaced persons. And in both clauses there must be acquisition “for a program or project.” At the time HUD acquired Sky Tower, no decision regarding disposition of the property had been made. Over a year elapsed before HUD decided to raze the buildings. Thus, the property was not acquired for any program or project. The provision relied on by the district court (the notice provision) was enacted to assure that people who move prior to actual acquisition can receive benefits if they receive a notice from the acquiring agency of its intention to acquire the property [emphasis added]. Therefore, benefits. accrue to an individual before acquisition occurs and even in the event it never occurs. H.Rept.No.1656, 91st Cong., 2d sess. 4 (1970). It was not intended to make relocation benefits available for different types of acquisitions or for different classes of programs or projects than the “acquisition” clause.