28 U.S.C. § 621
Board; composition, tenure of members, compensation
1996—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–317, § 601(b)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “two active judges of the courts of appeals of the United States, three active judges of the district courts of the United States, one active judge of the bankruptcy courts of the United States elected by vote of the members of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, however, That the judges so elected shall not be members of the Judicial Conference of the United States; and”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–317, § 601(b)(2), substituted “retirement pursuant to section 371(a) or section 372(a) of this title,” for “retirement,”.
1978—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 95–598, § 228, inserted reference to one active judge of the bankruptcy courts of the United States.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–598, § 229, struck out provisions requiring that section 629 of this title govern the terms of office of the first members elected to the Board.
Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Arcenio E. Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2002).
Arcenio E. Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2002). “§ 1981 , and age-based discrimination under the ADEA, 28 U.S.C. § 621 , filed a complaint and an amended complaint.”
Ingrassia v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 130 F. Supp. 3d 709 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). “, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 28 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6).”
Jephunneh Lawrence v. Elmer B. Staats, 640 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “28 U.S.C. §§ 621 , 624(1) (1976). The Director of the Federal Judicial Center, in turn, hires professional staff without regard to civil service restrictions, 28 U.”
Carter v. Pena, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1997). “and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 28 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Upon consideration of the written submissions of the parties, oral arguments, and the relevant law, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
Matter of Wildman, 30 B.R. 133 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1983). “(g) § 407(d) was deleted and § 621(a)(2) amended, thus reducing the requirement that two bankruptcy judges serve on the Board of the Judicial Center to one ( 28 U.S.C. § 621 (a)(2)); (h) § 405(a)(1) imposed limitations upon a bankruptcy judge’s ability to issue injunctions and…”
Douglas v. Int'l Auto. Components Grp. North Am., Inc., 483 F. App'x 178 (6th Cir. 2012). “Lawrence Douglas appeals a district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 28 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. International Automotive Components Group North America, Inc.”
Elza v. Koch Indus., Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (D. Kan. 1998). “, alleging she was discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 28 U.S.C. § 621 , et seq., and the Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (KADEA), K.”
Archie v. Home-Towne Suites, LLC, 749 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (M.D. Ala. 2010). “1 The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this case on May 29, 2009, bringing claims of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”); gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as…”
Thayer v. City of Holton, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (D. Kan. 2007). “§ 1983 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 28 U.S.C. § 621 . UNCONTROVERTED FACTS Plaintiff was born in 1960.”
Mustafa Bostanci v. Nj City Univ., 476 F. App'x 499 (3d Cir. 2012). “, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 28 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), 42 U.”
United States v. Schwartz, 692 F. Supp. 331 (D. Del. 1988). “28 U.S.C. § 621 (1982). The Board appoints the Director of the Center and may remove at its pleasure.”
Collins v. Chicago Transit Auth., No. 1:19-cv-05591 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2020). “) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Isis Collins (“Collins”) brings this action against her former employer the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) and Georgette Hampton (“Hampton”) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 28 U.S.C. § 621 , et seq. and…”
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.