22 U.S.C. § 801
Repealed. Pub. L. 96–465, title II, § 2205(1), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2159
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1949–1998 · leading case: Watson v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 755 (Ct. Cl. 1958).
Watson v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 755 (Ct. Cl. 1958). “The Supreme Court accordingly held that the State Department loyalty discharge regulations were applicable to McCarran Rider discharges to the extent that such discharges were based on loyalty or security grounds, and that since Mr. Service was discharged on loyalty grounds, the…”
Serv. v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957). “22 U. S. C. § 801 et seq. That statute authorizes the Secretary of State to separate officers from the Foreign Service “for unsatisfactory performance of duty,” id,.”
David I. & R. Lee Hitchcock v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 578 F.2d 972 (4th Cir. 1978). “1028 , 22 U.S.C. § 801 , et seq. 3 The Tax Court agrees: “After considering the mandatory statutory language, the legislative history, and the record in this case, we have concluded that home leave is indeed compulsory.”
Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp., 27 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 1998). “1152 (discussing effect of McCarran Rider on the substantive and procedural rights granted by the Foreign Service Act, 22 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.). In Vitarelli , by both statute and regulation, the Secretary of Interior had unfettered discretion to summarily dismiss Vitarelli…”
Roger C. Brewin & Mary T. Brewin v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Kurt H. & Jolanda M. Teil v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 639 F.2d 805 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “999 , 22 U.S.C. § 801 (2). Further, the House Foreign Affairs Committee declared in 1946 in considering this legislation: There is perhaps no phase of Foreign Service administration about which there is more general agreement than that connected with the problem of insuring that…”
Margot Ellen Reiner v. United States of Am., 686 F.2d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “999 (1946) (codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq.) (1976). Personnel practices and requirements for the Foreign Service are currently governed by The Foreign Service Act of 1980, Pub.”
Ilya v. Talev v. John E. Reinhardt, 662 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “999 (1946), as amended, 22 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. (1976), which was in vogue when Talev came to VOA in 1974.”
Francis S. Hall v. James A. Baker, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of State, 867 F.2d 693 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “999 (1946) (codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. (1976)). See 22 U.”
Yeghiayan v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 364 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “” Section 1007 states that its provisions "shall not apply to * * * any * * * officer or employee of the Service * * * whose appointment is limited or temporary, except when separation is by reason of misconduct.”
Colm v. Kissinger, 406 F. Supp. 1250 (D.D.C. 1975). “ORDER Upon consideration of the Court’s Memorandum issued this day, it is this 17th day of December, 1975, Ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, denied; and it is further Ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is,…”
Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. United States, 536 F.2d 1361 (Ct. Cl. 1976). “Admittedly, there is no express repeal provision in the Foreign Service Act. It is a familiar rule that repeal by implication is found only by reason of necessity, and repeals by implication are consistently frowned upon.”
Johnston v. United States, 175 F.2d 612 (4th Cir. 1949). “999 , 22 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq., wherein the Foreign Service laws were revised and codified.”
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.