16 U.S.C. § 79
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1941–1987 · leading case: United States v. Big Bend Transit Co., 42 F. Supp. 459 (E.D. Wash. 1941).
United States v. Big Bend Transit Co., 42 F. Supp. 459 (E.D. Wash. 1941). “790 [ 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 79 , 522, 43 U.S.C.A. § 959 ]).”
Carlous R. Baum v. William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor, 786 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1986). “This court has jurisdiction to review this petition pursuant to section 103(h) of the Redwood Act, 16 U.S.C. § 79 / (h). *939 The requirements for severance benefits are established in section 208 of the Redwood Act, which provides: (a) An affected employee .”
Turner v. Brock, 813 F.2d 1494 (9th Cir. 1987). “§ 2395 (b) (1982), as incorporated by Section 103(h), as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 79 /(h) (1982). The fact an employer has designated the person performing certain duties as a foreman is not controlling.”
Willie J. Sorrels v. Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 786 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1986). “This is one of many appeals to this court pursuant to section 103(h) of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (“Redwood Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 79 /(h) (1982), requiring us to interpret provisions of that Act.”
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.