Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
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
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 262 F.2d 307
Argued December 2, 1958 Decided December 31, 1958
Leo E. Sherman, Norwalk, Conn., for appellant.
Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., U. S. Atty., and W. Paul Flynn, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn, for Housing and Home Finance Agency and Albert W. Cole, Administrator, appellees.
Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, Walter G. Farr, Jr., New Haven, Conn., for Frank O'Brion and others and the City of New Haven, appellees.
Before SWAN, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
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