Hilda Lewis v. Leonard Swanson, Individually and as a Director for the Local Public Agency for Urban Renewal in the City of Rapid City, South Dakota

Eighth Circuit

Hilda Lewis v. Leonard Swanson, Individually and as a Director for the Local Public Agency for Urban Renewal in the City of Rapid City, South Dakota

516 F.2d 915

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 1975

Docket75-1036

StatusPublished

This text of 516 F.2d 915 (Hilda Lewis v. Leonard Swanson, Individually and as a Director for the Local Public Agency for Urban Renewal in the City of Rapid City, South Dakota) 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

Hilda Lewis v. Leonard Swanson, Individually and as a Director for the Local Public Agency for Urban Renewal in the City of Rapid City, South Dakota, 516 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In this proposed class action the plaintiffs allege that the United States and the Rapid City, South Dakota, Urban Renewal Agency have denied them relocation assistance benefits and have threatened to displace Rapid City residents in violation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq., and the National Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. and regulations thereunder. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants.

On review of the pleadings and affidavits in the record, we find disputed issues of material fact making summary judgment inappropriate. The district court shall order defendants- to answer plaintiffs’ interrogatories forthwith, and *916 thereafter shall promptly determine whether the suit may be certified as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c). Trial shall be set at an early date to allow plaintiffs to proceed with proof of their allegations of denial of benefits under the applicable statutes and regulations set forth in their complaint.

Reversed and remanded.

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

ORDER

In this proposed class action the plaintiffs allege that the United States and the Rapid City, South Dakota, Urban Renewal Agency have denied them relocation assistance benefits and have threatened to displace Rapid City residents in violation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq., and the National Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. and regulations thereunder. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants.

On review of the pleadings and affidavits in the record, we find disputed issues of material fact making summary judgment inappropriate. The district court shall order defendants- to answer plaintiffs’ interrogatories forthwith, and *916 thereafter shall promptly determine whether the suit may be certified as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c). Trial shall be set at an early date to allow plaintiffs to proceed with proof of their allegations of denial of benefits under the applicable statutes and regulations set forth in their complaint.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilda-lewis-v-leonard-swanson-individually-and-as-a-director-for-the-ca8-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack