Evan J. Henry, Representing Himself and All Other Taxpayers Similarly Affected v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), Washington, D. C.

Eighth Circuit

Evan J. Henry, Representing Himself and All Other Taxpayers Similarly Affected v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), Washington, D. C.

451 F.2d 355, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6964

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1971

Docket71-1410

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 451 F.2d 355 (Evan J. Henry, Representing Himself and All Other Taxpayers Similarly Affected v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), Washington, D. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evan J. Henry, Representing Himself and All Other Taxpayers Similarly Affected v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), Washington, D. C., 451 F.2d 355, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6964 (8th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the United States District Court dismissing the appellant’s complaint on its merits and with prejudice is affirmed for the reason that the complaint does not state a cause of action.

The appellant requests on appeal that this Court give him permission to amend his complaint. He requests, further, that we give an opinion on the following questions: (1) the constitutionality of Minnesota Statute 462.585 Subd. 4; (2) the validity of a contract between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Winona (HRA); (8) the validity of a contract between HRA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and (4) the validity of a contract between the HRA and Plaza Development Corporated dated July 13, 1971. He also asks us to decide whether further urban renewal planning or substantial modification of present redevelopment plans are void unless approved by the City Council of Winona and, by referendum, by the people of Winona.

This Court does not have jurisdiction to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint and may not give advisory opinions on matters not raised before the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the United States District Court dismissing the appellant’s complaint on its merits and with prejudice is affirmed for the reason that the complaint does not state a cause of action.

The appellant requests on appeal that this Court give him permission to amend his complaint. He requests, further, that we give an opinion on the following questions: (1) the constitutionality of Minnesota Statute 462.585 Subd. 4; (2) the validity of a contract between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Winona (HRA); (8) the validity of a contract between HRA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and (4) the validity of a contract between the HRA and Plaza Development Corporated dated July 13, 1971. He also asks us to decide whether further urban renewal planning or substantial modification of present redevelopment plans are void unless approved by the City Council of Winona and, by referendum, by the people of Winona.

This Court does not have jurisdiction to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint and may not give advisory opinions on matters not raised before the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 F.2d 355, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evan-j-henry-representing-himself-and-all-other-taxpayers-similarly-ca8-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack