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

518 chars

This, of course, is not to suggest that § 101 (6) would be inapplicable if an agency acquired property for one program, expecting to displace persons, and then ultimately issued orders to vacate for a different program or project. But Congress’ intent to provide relocation benefits for persons displaced in that manner does not assist the tenants here, because their eligibility depends primarily on whether HUD acquired Sky Tower and Riverhouse Apartments “for” a federal program or project in the first instance. 43