Section 2

Citation: Section 2
Parent Document: United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1975-10-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109272/united-housing-foundation-inc-v-forman/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (195)

United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2
Section 2

Full Text

605 chars

The Court of Appeals also found support for its concept of profits in the fact that Co-op City offered space at a cost substantially below the going rental charges for comparable housing. Again, this is an inappropriate theory of "profits" that we cannot accept. The low rent derives from the substantial financial subsidies provided by the State of New York. This benefit cannot be liquidated into cash; nor does it result from the managerial efforts of others. In a real sense, it no more embodies the attributes of income or profits than do welfare benefits, food stamps, or other government subsidies.