19 U.S.C. § 2322
Repealed. Pub. L. 107–210, div. A, title I, §123(b)(2), Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 944
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1978–1998 · leading case: Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., Uaw v. F. Ray Marshall, 584 F.2d 390 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., Uaw v. F. Ray Marshall, 584 F.2d 390 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “While the factual findings of the Secretary must be accepted if supported by “substantial evidence,” 19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b) (1976), there is a further requirement that the rulings made on the basis of those findings be in accordance with the statute and not be arbitrary or…”
Lloyd v. U. S. Dep't of Labor, 637 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1980). “We have jurisdiction under § 250 of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2322 . I. The Statute The Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.”
Rosemary Fortin v. F. Ray Marshall, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor, United States of Am., 608 F.2d 525 (1st Cir. 1979). “19 U.S.C. § 2322 . The worker adjustment assistance program is but one facet of the Trade Act of 1974.”
Local 167, Int'l Molders & Allied Workers' Union ex rel. Grp. of Aggrieved Workers v. Marshall, 643 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1981). “19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b). There can be little question that, if the findings are supportable, the Secretary’s determination must be affirmed.”
William F. Lanning v. Honorable Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, 650 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir. 1981). “The decision of the Secretary is reviewable in this Court under the terms of 19 U.S.C. § 2322 , repealed Nov. 1, 1980.”
Jones v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 405 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980). “If Jones disagreed with the scope of the certification he is provided with a procedure for review by 19 U.S.C. § 2322 (a) (1974):”
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., Local 798 v. Raymond J. Donovan, United States Sec'y of Labor, 652 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1981). “” 19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b) (1976). Measured by this standard, however, we believe the evidence in the record before us is insufficient to support the Secretary’s decision.”
Drapich v. Donovan, 693 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1982). “Petitioners state that their appeal to this court is authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 2322 (1976). This section was repealed by an Act of Oct.”
Sugar Workers Union, Local 1660 v. Dole, 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 861 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990). “See 19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b). Instead, plaintiffs state that, because of the characteristics of the sugar market noted above, “the results of customer surveys are of no significance in this matter”; Memorandum at 15; plaintiffs principally contend that Labor erred on remand in that…”
United Glass & Ceramic Workers of North Am. v. Marshall, 584 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b) (1976). . There were two types of information that supported OTAA’s and the Secretary’s conclusions regarding float glass.”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Reich, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 712 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “(citing 19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b) (Secretary’s findings shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)).”
Int'l Union v. Marshall, 627 F.2d 559 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “19 U.S.C. § 2322 (b) (1976). . The UAW argues that its industry-wide approach to “an appropriate subdivision” would not confer a windfall to undeserving workers.”
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.