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

589 chars

the program or project must also be the reason for acquiring the property. Yet the tenants have never contended that HUD initially acquired Sky Tower in order to eliminate blight or to further the District of Columbia government’s master plan, nor did the Court of Appeals or the District Court reach such a conclusion. Without the requisite relationship between the demolition program and the acquisition, HUD’s proposal for disposing of Sky Tower is no different than any other property management plan, insufficient by itself to confer eligibility under § 101 (6) of the Relocation Act.