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

643 chars 
Likewise, the majority claim that “[t]he government’s argument that the notice clause requires, in addition, that an agency acquire property for a government program or project, would artificially restrict the coverage . . . ”29 This is not the government’s argument at all. The government does not say that for a person to be displaced under the notice clause the agency must acquire the property, only that the agency propose to acquire and give written notice to that effect. This is the whole purpose of the notice clause; it is the majority’s erroneous construction of the government’s argument which alone would create a “surplusage.” B.