29 U.S.C. § 18

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subject to the limitation on the availability of funds set forth in subsection (b), an associate degree program which is predominantly vocational in content may be considered by the Administrator, for the purposes of section 3462(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, to be a course with an approved vocational objective if such degree program meets the requirements established in such title for approval of such program.“(b) Funds for the purpose of carrying out subsection (a) shall be derived only from amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorizations of appropriations in section 16. Not more than a total of $25,000,000 of amounts so appropriated for fiscal years 1984 and 1985 shall be available for that purpose.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: HEALTH OPTIONS v. Palmetto Pathology Servs., 983 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

HEALTH OPTIONS v. Palmetto Pathology Servs., 983 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “See 29 U.S.C. § 18 . [6] In this case, HOI's member contracts are expressly subject to "all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.”

Centro Medico Panamericano, Ltd. v. Laborers' Welfare Fund of Health & Welfare Dept. of Const. & Gen. Laborers' Dist. Council of Chicago & Vicinity, 2015 IL App (1st) 141690 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “Plaintiff also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( 29 U.S.C. § 18 (2000) (ERISA)), preempted plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel.”

Centro Medico Panamericano, Ltd. v. Laborers' Welfare Fund of the Health & Welfare Dep't of the Constr. & Gen. Laborers' Dist. Council, 2015 IL App (1st) 141690 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “Plaintiff also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( 29 U.S.C. § 18 (2000) (ERISA)), preempted plaintiff’s claim for promissory estoppel.”

Painters Dist. Council No. 58 v. Platinum Enter., LLC (E.D. Mo. 2021). “Background Plaintiffs filed this action on July 26, 2016, to collect delinquent fringe benefit contributions from Defendants Platinum Enterprises, LLC, and Myrian Baker pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 18 , and…”

In re Est. of Butts, 2026 IL App (2d) 240506-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “Further pleadings followed, which included arguments based on the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (codified in part at 29 U.S.C. § 18 (2020)) and the Third Party Beneficiary Contract Act (755 ILCS 30/0.”

Centro Medico Panamericano, Ltd. v. Laborers' Welfare Fund, 2015 IL App (1st) 141690 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “Plaintiff also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( 29 U.S.C. § 18 (2000) (ERISA)), preempted plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel.”

Rexam Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp. (Del. Ch. 2015). “e date the PBGC issues written notification that the PBGC Inquiry is closed (the ‘Resolution Date’) or (ii) one hundred and eighty (180) days after the Rexam Closing Date [December 2, 2014] (the ‘Outside Date’) (such period from the date of this letter until the earlier of the…”

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.