19 U.S.C. § 2101
Short title
This chapter may be cited as the “Trade Act of 1974”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1125 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1125 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “, and its successor statute, the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101 , et seq, 33 The proceedings are of two general *1163 types: (1) so-called “Escape Clause” proceedings (§ 301(b)(1) of the 1962 Act and § 201(b) of the 1974 Act), 34 in which relief in the form, for example, of…”
Williams v. Bd. of Review, 917 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Reginia Williams, appeals the order of the circuit court affirming the decision by the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Board) to deny plaintiff a trade readjustment allowance (TRA)…”
Williams v. Bd. of Review, 948 N.E.2d 561 (Ill. 2011). “OPINION At issue is whether appellee, Reginia Williams, is eligible to receive trade readjustment allowance (TRA) benefits under the federal Trade Act of 1974 (Act) ( 19 U.S.C. §2101 et seq. (2006)) 1 . The Board of Review (Board) of the Illinois Department of Employment…”
In re the Claim of Ford, 12 A.D.3d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “The facts of this ongoing dispute over claimant’s eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance (hereinafter TAA) benefits under the federal Trade Act of 1974 ( 19 USC § 2101 et seq.) are set forth in this Court’s recent decision settling the record ( 5 AD3d 929 [2004]).”
Sidell v. Review Bd. of Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 428 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). “*283 TRADE ACT OF 1974 The appeal requires an interpretation of the phrase weeks of employment used in the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., as applied through Indiana law.”
Lynette Coleman v. Louisville Pants Corp. & Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Clc, 691 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1982). “BROWN, Circuit Judge: On July 29,1980, Lynette Coleman and 64 other former employees 1 of the Louisville Pants Company filed suit in Mississippi state court alleging that the Louisville Pants Company and the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACT-WU) had breached a…”
Long Term Care Pharmacy All. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 498 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D.D.C. 2007). “In that case, a union sought a declaration that the Secretary of Labor had incorrectly interpreted the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., causing several state agencies to deny benefits to union members.”
Talberg v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 370 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “ISSUE Does the payment of vacation pay after a period of layoff establish a new separation date for the purposes of determining eligibility for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.? ANALYSIS Part two of subchapter II of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.”
York v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 425 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). “TRA benefits are administered pursuant to the Federal Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. The benefits are available to groups of workers whose employers have been adversely affected by international trade.”
Kistler v. Commonwealth, 416 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980). “10 , part of the regulations implementing the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. §2101 et seq. The Board did consider this issue and determined that since Petitioner was ineligible for benefits under the Law, he also was ineligible under Section 91.”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Brock, 816 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “19 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. (1976 ed.). The District Court found that the guidelines conflicted with section 231 of the Trade Act and with the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Act of 1972 (Veterans’ Act of 1972), 38 U.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Fitzgerald, 452 S.E.2d 692 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “” However, notwithstanding this statutory bar, no “otherwise eligible individual shall be denied benefits for any week because he is in training approved under § 2296 of the Trade Act ( 19 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.), nor ... by reason of leaving work to enter such training, provided…”
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.