15 U.S.C. § 1676
Enforcement by Secretary of Labor
The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, shall enforce the provisions of this subchapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Sheils v. Bucks Cnty. Dom. Relations Section, 921 F. Supp. 2d 396 (E.D. Pa. 2013).
Sheils v. Bucks Cnty. Dom. Relations Section, 921 F. Supp. 2d 396 (E.D. Pa. 2013). “We now hold that since 15 U.S.C. § 1676 provides that “[t]he Secretary of Labor, acting through the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, shall enforce the provisions of this subchapter” including § 1673, it is plain that “Congress [did not] intend[ ] to create…”
James E. Le Vick v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 701 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1983). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1676 (1976). The House Committee on Banking and Currency stated that enforcement of the provisions of Subchapter II is vested in “[t]he Secretary of Labor, acting through the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.”
W. J. Usery, Jr., Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. First Nat'l Bank of Arizona, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n, 586 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1978). “15 U.S.C. § 1676 . The initial complaint alleged that the First National Bank of Arizona violated the Act by paying a garnishment attaching sums in the checking account of a depositor, a Mr.”
Jack McCabe v. City of Eureka, Missouri, 664 F.2d 680 (8th Cir. 1981). “And the lack of a private remedy when considered with the command of 15 U.S.C. § 1676 , that the Secretary of Labor shall enforce section 1674 is consistent with the “legislative scheme” of the Act.”
Walter Monroe Smith v. Cotton Bros. Baking Co., Inc., 609 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1980). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1676 . This would appear to be an implicit legislative manifestation to deny a private remedy.”
Follette v. Vitanza, 658 F. Supp. 492 (N.D.N.Y. 1987). “Under 15 U.S.C. § 1676 (1982), it is mandated that the Secretary of Labor, through the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, “shall enforce the provisions” of Sub-chapter II.”
Hodgson v. Cleveland Mun. Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Ohio 1971). “Upon the record it is determined and concluded that irreparable damage will result to the individual plaintiffs, to other judgment debtors, and to the Secretary of Labor, charged with the enforcement of the Federal garnishment law by 15 U.S.C. § 1676 (1970), unless defendants…”
Marshall v. Gibson's Prods., Inc. of Plano, 584 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1978). “In Hodgson , the defendants questioned the jurisdiction of the district court over a suit brought by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the authority of § 306 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1676 (1976). Section 306 mandates that the Secretary “enforce the…”
Donovan v. Hamilton Cnty. Mun. Court, 580 F. Supp. 554 (S.D. Ohio 1984). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1676 . Here, the Secretary of Labor brings this action for declaratory and in-junctive relief claiming that the Hamilton County Municipal Court and its employees are in violation of 15 U.”
Ellis v. Glover & Gardner Constr. Co., 562 F. Supp. 1054 (M.D. Tenn. 1983). “15 U.S.C. § 1676 . See Stewart, 503 F.2d at 113 n.”
Agg v. Flanagan, 855 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1988). “2d at 779 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1676 ). Ellis v. Glover & Gardner Construction Co.”
Simpson v. Sperry Rand Corp., 350 F. Supp. 1057 (W.D. La. 1972). “” ( 15 U.S.C.A. § 1676 .) It is axiomatic that in the absence of clear Congressional intent to the contrary, “a federal statute passed to protect a class of citizens, although not specifically authorizing members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implie[s] a…”
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.