# Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 7, 1968 · 395 F.2d 920

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453690

## Case

- **Full name:** NORWALK CORE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORWALK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** June 7, 1968
- **Citations:** 395 F.2d 920; 8 A.L.R. Fed. 388; 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 368; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6615
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hays
- **Judges:** Smith, Kaufman, Hays
- **Cited by:** 293 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453690

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, where a complaint alleged discrimination against particular races by city housing relocation program and questions of fact common to all members, the “fact that some members of the class were personally satisfied with the defendants’ relocation efforts is irrelev…
- holding displaced residents may sue both federal and local agencies as well as private developers under section 105(c) for failing to relocate them satisfactorily as provided for in the statute or as contractually required

## Opinion text

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I would affirm the determination of the district court.
The issues which the plaintiffs offer are not justiciable and the remedies they seek are not within the power of the court to grant. See Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 131-132 , 60 S.Ct. 869, 879 , 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940) (“The interference of the courts with the performance of the ordinary duties of the executive departments of the Government, would be productive of nothing but mischief,” quoting Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 497, 516 , 10 L.Ed. 559 (1840)); Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 , 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 , 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954) (“We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable”).
The holding that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the action is another formulation of the same principles. See Green Street Association v. Daley, 373 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 932 , 87 S.Ct. 2054 , 18 L.Ed.2d 995 (1967); Berry v. Housing and Home Finance Agency, 340 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1965) (per curiam); Johnson v. Redevelopment Agency, 317 F.2d 872 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 915 , 84 S.Ct. 216 , 11 L.Ed.2d 154 (1963); Pittsburgh Hotels Association v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 309 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1962), cert. denied sub. nom. Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority, 372 U.S. 916 , 83 S.Ct. 730 , 9 L.Ed.2d 723 (1963); Taft Hotel Corp. v. Housing and Home Finance Agency, 262 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1958) (per curiam), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 967 , 79 S.Ct. 880 , 3 L.Ed.2d 835 (1959); Allied-City Wide, Inc. v. Cole, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 277 , 230 F.2d 827 (1956) (per curiam).
The Federal courts cannot administer s the housing program. Í

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453690. Public record. Not legal advice.