United Indians of Nebraska v. Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor, 702 F.2d 673 (8th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
United Indians of Nebraska v. Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor, 702 F.2d 673 (8th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Campesinos Unidos, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, Center for Employment Training, Intervenor-Respondent (ca9, 1986-11-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Campesinos Unidos, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor, Center for Employment Training, Intervenor-Respondent
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United Indians of Nebraska v. Donovan, 702 F.2d 673, 674 (8th Cir.1983) (in light of CETA’s repeal, nothing court could decide on the merits can or should provide any precedent for future action).
discussed Cited "see" State Of Maine v. United States Department Of Labor
1st Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See United Indians of Nebraska v. Donovan, 702 F.2d 673 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (finding challenge to grant under predecessor to current Act moot in part because of the expiration of the relevant grant period).
discussed Cited "see" Maine v. United States Department of Labor
1st Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See United Indians of Nebraska v. Donovan, 702 F.2d 673 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (finding challenge to grant under predecessor to current Act moot in part because of the expiration of the relevant grant period).
cited Cited "see, e.g." North Dakota Rural Development Corporation v. United States Department of Labor, Minnesota Migrant Council, Intervenor
8th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Campesinos, 803 F.2d at 1070-71 ; Maine, 770 F.2d at 239 ; see also, e.g., United Indians of Neb. v. Donovan, 702 F.2d 673, 674 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED INDIANS OF NEBRASKA, Petitioner,
v.
Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary, Department of Labor, Respondent
82-1286.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 25, 1983.
702 F.2d 673
P.F. Render, Omaha, Neb., for petitioner., T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., Sol. of Labor, William H. DuRoss, III, Associate Sol. for Employment and Training, James P. Marion, Jr., Deputy Associate Sol. for Employment and Training, E. Kathleen Shahan, Atty. U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
McMillian, Henley, Fagg.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Petitioner United Indians of Nebraska applied to the Division of Indian and Native American Programs (DINAP) of the Department of Labor for grant funds for fiscal year 1981 under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, as amended, (CETA) to serve the Native American population of seven Iowa counties and seventeen Nebraska counties. Petitioner was initially awarded the requested funding for all of the counties except for one in Nebraska. After petitioner requested reconsideration of the initial funding decision DINAP upheld its denial of grant funds for the county in question and also determined that it had incorrectly awarded funding to petitioner for two other Nebraska counties. DINAP’s adverse decision was followed by a request for a hearing. In January, 1982 an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the denial of grant funds for all three counties. [1] Petitioner subsequently sought review of the administrative decision in this court.

It is clear from the record in this case that the fiscal year in question had expired by the time the matter wound its way through the appropriate administrative channels and a final administrative decision was rendered. In addition, CETA, the federal law authorizing the disbursement of grant funds for the benefit of Native Americans in this case, expired at the end of fiscal year 1982. [2] It is conceded that no retroactive relief can be given with respect to fiscal year 1981, and in light of the circumstances nothing that this court could decide on the merits or that the ALJ decided in his decision of January, 1982 can or should provide any precedent for future action. Therefore, we conclude that this case must be, and it is, dismissed as moot.

1

. The ALJ’s decision was the final decision of the Secretary in this case.

2

. See S.Rep. No. 469, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in [1982] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2636, 2636.