Section 101

Citation: Section 101
Parent Document: Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1979-04-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110054/alexander-v-united-states-depart... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (175)

Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 441 U.S. 39 (1979)
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 204
Section 204
Section 204
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101
Section 101

Full Text

484 chars

Identical language triggers application of § 205. 84 Stat. 1897, 42 U. S. C. § 4625. If the tenants’ broad construction of the written order clause were correct, certain individuals would qualify as displaced persons within the meaning of § 101 (6), but the lack of an acquisition would preclude them from receiving benefits under §§202 and 205. Absent any indication that Congress intended such an anomalous result, we believe all three provisions must be given similar scope. 36 *61