45 C.F.R. § 99.1
Scope of rules
(a) The rules of procedure in this section govern the practice for hearings afforded by the Department to Lead Agencies pursuant to § 98.18(c) or § 98.91, and the practice relating to the decisions of such hearings.
(b) Nothing in this part is intended to preclude or limit negotiations between the Department and the Lead Agency, whether before, during, or after the hearing, to resolve the issues which are, or otherwise would be, considered at the hearing. Such negotiations and resolution of issues are not part of the hearing and are not governed by the rules in this part, except as expressly provided herein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1980–1987 · leading case: Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1982).
Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1982). “_ 1 Michigan State University, as a recipient of federal funds, falls within the purview of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Buckley Amendment; PL 90-247, Title IV, § 438 as amended; 20 USC 1232g, 45 CFR 99.1 et seq.). That statute provides for access to student…”
State Employees Ass'n v. Dep't of Mgmt. & Budget, 428 Mich. 104 (Mich. 1987). “That case will be discussed in the analysis section of this opinion. Defendant’s denial was based on an exemption in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Buckley Amendment; PL 90-247, tit IV, § 438 as amended; 20 USC 1232g, 45 CFR 99.”
Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 294 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “” Michigan State University, because it is a recipient of Federal funds, falls within the purview of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Buckley Amendment; PL 90-247, Title IV, § 438 as amended; 20 USC 1232g, 45 CFR 99.1 et seq.). The latter statute serves two…”
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.