28 U.S.C. § 794
Law clerks and secretaries
The judges of the United States Court of Federal Claims may appoint necessary law clerks and secretaries, in such numbers as the Judicial Conference of the United States may approve for district judges, subject to any limitation of the aggregate salaries of such employees which may be imposed by law. A law clerk appointed under this section shall be exempt from the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 63 of title 5, unless specifically included by the appointing judge or by local rule of court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Marino v. City University of New York
Marino v. City University of New York (2014)
“, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 28 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. Defendants move this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing that CUNY and its officials are immune…”
Abdus-Sabur v. Corrections Corporation of America (2016)
“Additionally, as the Court previously noted, the scope of section 504 is limited to “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” 28 U.S.C. § 794 (a), in the form of a subsidy and not merely a benefactor of federal funding, which is what the plaintiff here…”
Paul Lavista v. A.F. Beeler (1999)
“§§ 2201 , 2202 and the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, alleging, inter alia, denial of medical care, sexual harassment and sexual assault, destruction of personal property and retaliation during his incarceration at…”
Onishea v. Hopper (1997)
“" 28 U.S.C. § 794 . IV. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is VACATED.”
Sharrow v. Bailey (1995)
“shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance____ 28 U.S.C. § 794 (a). Section 504 “ ‘creates a private…”
Medley v. Ginsberg (1980)
“§ 1331 , 28 U.S.C. § 794 , and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 -2.”
Moore ex rel. the Estate of A.M. v. Chilton County Board of Education (2013)
“In Count II, Plaintiffs allege discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), 28 U.S.C. § 794 . Plain *1305 tiffs aver that “solely by reason” of A.”
Nodleman v. Aero Mexico (1981)
“II Section 504 of the Act, as amended, provides in pertinent part: No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in section 706(7) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits…”
Taylor v. City of Mason (2013)
“§ 12132 ; 28 U.S.C. § 794 (a). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on this ground is denied.”
Madison v. Housing Authority Of Baltimore City (2021)
“, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 794 . (ECF No. 1.) She asserts claims for failure to make reasonable accommodations, discrimination, and retaliation under each statute.”
Redding v. Mayorkas (2024)
“Under these provisions, venue is appropriate in: (1) “any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed,” (2) “in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and…”
(PC) Reed v. Fox (2023)
“) 2 (“ADA claim”); (2) violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.) 3 (“RA claim”); (3) violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights ( 42 U.”
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.