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
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
652 charsAlternatively, the tenants in No. 77-1463 contend that the particular disposition HUD planned for Sky Tower, pursuant to the Property Disposition Handbook, qualified them under the written order clause. After studying several options, HUD decided to demolish Sky Tower and sell the land to private developers who would build single-family homes, all in accordance with the District of Columbia government’s master plan for improving the neighborhood. By its own admission in proceedings before the District Court, HUD proposed the demolition to “eliminate blight” in conformity with a plan to revitalize the area. 396 F. Supp. 1235, 1236 (DC 1975). *66