U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— TRADE ACT OF 1974 › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— RELIEF FROM INJURY CAUSED BY IMPORT COMPETITION › Part Part 2— Adjustment Assistance for Workers › Subpart subpart d— nafta transitional adjustment assistance program

19 U.S.C. § 2331

Repealed. Pub. L. 107–210, div. A, title I, § 123(a), Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 944

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1997–2006 · leading case: Former Employees of Tyco Elec., Fiber Optics Div. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Former Employees of Tyco Elec., Fiber Optics Div. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 9× “) Former Employees sought certification under 19 U.S.C. § 2331 . 1 Section 2331(a)(1) provides: A group of workers .”
Former Employees of Chevron Prods. Co. v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002). · cites it 5× “at 673-74 ; 19 U.S.C. § 2331 (d) (1994). To qualify for NAFTA-TAA benefits, a group of workers or their union or other authorized representative must file with their Governor (generally through appropriate state labor authorities) a petition for certification of eligibility to…”
Former Employees of Chevron Prods. Co. v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 5× “vision have decreased absolutely, (ii) imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and (iii) the increase in imports under clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers’…”
Former Employees of Barry Callebaut v. Herman, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 3× “B The De Minimis Rule Applies to 19 U.S.C. § 2331 Because to Exempt the NAFTA TAA Program from the De Minimis Rule Would Thwart the Purpose of the Program.”
Former Employees of Tyco Elec., Fiber Optics Div. v. US Dept. of Labor, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 3× “In July 2001, Former Employees sought certification for NAFTA-TAA benefits pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2331 , 1 based on *1078 their belief that their job loss was a result of an increase in imports from Mexico and a result of a shift in production of fiber optic components to…”
Former Employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 3× “II Background On June 28, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking North American Free Trade Agreement Transition Adjustment Assistance (“NAFTA TAA”) benefits in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 2331 (1999). 1 Labor registered the petition on July 5, 2001, *1275 and designated it…”
Former Employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 448 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 19 U.S.C. § 2331 (1993). The Trade Act of 2002 combined *1353 the benefits programs under NAFTA-TAA and the Trade Act of 1974 and expanded those programs to expressly provide for benefits to “adversely affected secondary workers.”
Former Employees of Barry Callebaut v. Elaine Chao, Sec'y of Labor, 357 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “19 U.S.C. § 2331 (a) (2000). On August 6, 2002, § 2272 was amended and § 2331 was repealed.”
Former Employees of BMC Software, Inc. v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 454 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “II 2002)); 19 U.S.C. § 2331 (d)(3)(A)-(B) (repealed 2002); 20 C.”
Former Employees of Ameriphone, Inc. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “2 19 U.S.C. § 2331 (2000). See generally Former Employees of Chevron Prods.”
Former Employees of Rohm & Haas Co. v. Chao, 27 Ct. Int'l Trade 116 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 2× “On March 4, 2000, the Union filed a separate petition under 19 U.S.C. § 2331 for NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance 3 (the “Union’s NAFTA petition”), based on the same facts concerning the planned shift of production to Mexico.”
Former Employees of Tyco Elec., Fiber Optics Div. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 3× “On July 27, 2001, Plaintiffs petitioned for certification under 19 U.S.C. § 2331 1 *1355 for NAFTA-TAA benefits, based on their belief that their job loss was a result of a shift in production of fiber optic components to Mexico.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.