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

456 chars 
The majority opinion is thus grossly in error when it claims “. . . the government’s argument proves too much. If an 'acquisition’ as that term is used in the acquisition clause is also required under the notice clause, then the notice alternative would be rendered surplusage.”28 The notice clause was put in to take care of persons displaced in advance of a proposed acquisition which is never consummated, as is shown in the text of this opinion, infra.