When required by the Office, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board, or by authorized representatives of these bodies, agencies shall make available to them, or to their authorized representatives, employees to testify in regard to matters inquired of under the civil service laws, rules, and regulations, and records pertinent to these matters. All such employees, and all applicants or eligibles for positions covered by these rules, shall give to the Office, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Special Counsel, or to their authorized representatives, all information, testimony, documents, and material in regard to the above matters, the disclosure of which is not otherwise prohibited by law or regulation. These employees, applicants, and eligibles shall sign testimony given under oath or affirmation before an officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Employees are performing official duty when testifying or providing evidence pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case:
King v. Erickson, 89 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
King v. Erickson, 89 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
· cites it 3× “That regulation states in pertinent part: When required by the Office, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board, or by authorized representatives of these bodies, agencies shall make available to them, or to their…”
Special Couns. ex rel. Dale Klein v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2016).
“¶8 In its first request for extension, OSC asserted that DVA had failed to respond to its requests for information and documents pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 5.4 . U-3 SRF, Tab 1 at 3. OSC further maintained that, after DVA responded, it would need additional time to schedule and…”
Special Couns. ex rel. Carmine A. Tarantino v. Smithsonian Inst. (MSPB 2016).
“OSC alleges that 4 days after the Board granted the initial stay request, it requested information and documents from the Smithsonian Institution pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 5.4 . SREF, Tab 5 at 5. OSC contends that, as of the date of the stay extension request, the Smithsonian…”
Special Couns. ex rel. Carmine A. Tarantino v. Smithsonian Inst. (MSPB 2016).
“OSC alleges that 4 days after the Board granted the initial stay request, it requested information and documents from the Smithsonian Institution pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 5.4 . SREF, Tab 5 at 5. OSC contends that, as of the date of the stay extension request, the Smithsonian…”
Special Couns. ex rel. Carmine A. Tarantino v. Smithsonian Inst. (MSPB 2016).
“OSC alleges that 4 days after the Board granted the initial stay request, it requested information and documents from the Smithsonian Institution pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 5.4 . SREF, Tab 5 at 5. OSC contends that, as of the date of the stay extension request, the Smithsonian…”
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.