TAFT HOTEL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, ALBERT W. COLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, FRANK O'BRION, HARRY BARNET, ANDREW EUSTON, FRED W. WATERMAN, JR., MATTHEW RICOPPOLO, CONSTITUTING THE NEW HAVEN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Housing and Home Finance Agency cannot sue or be sued, service of process on the Administrator was improper, and the plaintiff lacks standing.
Plaintiff sought to challenge the approval of a redevelopment project including a hotel and sought to enjoin financial assistance. The lower court dis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Damnum Absque Injuria cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff’s action seeks a determination that Housing and Home Finance Agency and Albert W. Cole, Administrator of said Agency, acted illegally in approving New Haven’s Redevelopment Project, insofar as it includes the erection of a 300 room air conditioned hotel. It seeks also a mandatory injunction restraining said Agency and Administrator from furnishing any financial assistance to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of New Haven in furtherance thereof.
Judge Anderson’s opinion is reported in 162 F.Supp. 538. He held that the statutes do not authorize Housing and Home Finance Agency, as distinct from its Administrator, to sue or be sued. We agree.1 He held further that service of process upon the Administrator in Washington, D. C. did not bring him before the District Court for the District of Connecticut. With this also we agree.2 Finally he held that plaintiff has no cause of action against the local defendants because it has no standing to sue either as a taxpayer or as a person who may sustain economic loss through competition. This too is correct.3 Economic loss stemming from lawful competition, even though made possible by federal aid, is damnum absque injuria.
Judgment affirmed.
. See Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534; New Haven Public Schools v. General Services Administration, 7 Cir., 214 F. 2d 592.
. See Blank v. Bitker, 7 Cir., 135 F. 2d 962.
. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 487, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 479, 58 S.Ct. 300, 82 L.Ed. 374; Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 302 U.S. 485, 58 S.Ct. 306, 82 L.Ed. 381; Kansas City Power and Light Co. v. McKay, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 225 F. 2d 924, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 884, 76 S.Ct. 137, 100 L.Ed. 780.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redev. Agency, 395 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1968)
-
Harrison-Halsted Cmty. Grp., Inc. v. Hous. & Home Fin. Agency, 310 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1962)
-
Pittsburgh Hotels Ass'n, Inc. v. The Urban Redev. Auth. OF Pittsburgh, 309 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1962)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commonwealth of Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1923)
- Ala. Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1938)
- Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1952)
- Kan. City Power & Light Co. v. McKAY, 225 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Cnty., 302 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1938)
- T. A. Loving & Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 884 (U.S. 1955)
- LaRose v. Wyman, 350 U.S. 884 (U.S. 1955)
- Blank v. Bitker, 135 F.2d 962 (7th Cir. 1943)
- New Haven Pub. Schs. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 214 F.2d 592 (7th Cir. 1954)