45 C.F.R. § 1618.1
Purpose
In order to ensure uniform and consistent interpretation and application of the provisions of the LSC Act, the Corporation's appropriations act or other law applicable to LSC funds, a Corporation rule, regulation, guideline or instruction, or the terms and conditions of the recipient's grant or contract with the Corporation, and to prevent a question of whether these requirements have been violated from becoming an ancillary issue in any case undertaken by a recipient, this part establishes a systematic procedure for enforcing compliance with them.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1980–2012 · leading case: Saldivar v. Rodela, 894 F. Supp. 2d 916 (W.D. Tex. 2012).
Saldivar v. Rodela, 894 F. Supp. 2d 916 (W.D. Tex. 2012). “Should there be lingering concerns about legal aid entities’ ability to claim and collect fees under a fee-shifting statute, "the proper recourse would be to complain to .”
Bessie Lee Harris v. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc., 609 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1980). “45 C.F.R. 1618.1. While the lower court opinion was unclear as to whether the attorney’s fees should be paid to Harris or directly to Legal Services, 45 C.”
Dennis v. Chang, 611 F.2d 1302 (9th Cir. 1980). “45 C.F.R. § 1618.1 . Appellants’ argument is ancillary to the underlying proceedings, and is presented without the benefit of either an adequate record or the agency’s construction of the statute or of its own regulations.”
Mitchell v. Frank Morris Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., 395 So. 2d 51 (Ala. 1981). “Petitioner also refers to 45 C.F.R. § 1618.1 , which provides: In order to insure uniform and consistent interpretation and application of the Act, and to prevent a question of whether the Act has been violated from becoming an ancillary issue in any case undertaken by a…”
Felder v. Foster, 107 Misc. 2d 782 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1981). “*788 (45 CFR 1618.1). The legislative history of the statute is in accord with this stated purpose (see 1977 US Code Cong & Admin News, vol 3, p 4503, House Report No.”
DeMichele v. Waltham Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 629 N.E.2d 982 (Mass. 1994). “” 45 C.F.R. § 1618.1 (1993). It is reasonable to suppose that the Massachusetts Legislature, by incorporating in the MLAC statute the same language Congress used in the LSC statute, intended the same result.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.