29 U.S.C. § 707

Nonduplication

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

In determining the amount of any State’s Federal share of expenditures for planning, administration, and services incurred by it under a State plan approved in accordance with section 721 of this title, there shall be disregarded—(1) any portion of such expenditures which are financed by Federal funds provided under any other provision of law; and(2) the amount of any non-Federal funds required to be expended as a condition of receipt of such Federal funds.No payment may be made from funds provided under one provision of this chapter relating to any cost with respect to which any payment is made under any other provision of this chapter, except that this section shall not be construed to limit or reduce fees for services rendered by community rehabilitation programs.(Pub. L. 93–112, § 10, formerly § 8, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, § 403, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1110; renumbered § 10 and amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, § 101(f) [title VIII, § 402(a)(1), (c)(2)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–412, 2681–415.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 709 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220.

A prior section 707, Pub. L. 93–112, § 8, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 362; Pub. L. 94–273, § 10, Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 378; Pub. L. 102–569, title I, § 103, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4361, related to allotment percentage, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, § 403, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1093. See section 706 of this title.

A prior section 10 of Pub. L. 93–112 was renumbered section 12 and is classified to section 709 of this title.

Another prior section 10 of Pub. L. 93–112 was classified to section 709 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220.

Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 101(f) [title VIII, § 402(c)(2)], substituted a dash for a colon after “disregarded” and amended text to set out cls. (1) and (2) as indented pars. and last sentence as flush provision.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2003–2010 · leading case: Tesh v. United States Postal Serv., 349 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tesh v. United States Postal Serv., 349 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003). “This case was brought to trial on Appellant Tesh’s allegation that Appellee *1272 United States Postal Service (USPS), his former employer, discriminated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 707 -797b. Specifically, Appellant alleged that USPS…”

United States v. State of New York, 700 F. Supp. 2d 186 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). “regarding improving the quality of vocational rehabilitation services”); 29 U.S.C. § 707 (relating to fees for “services rendered by community rehabilitation programs”); 29 U.”

Cooper v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 699 F. Supp. 2d 690 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “Specifically, the Court stated: [W]hile claims resting on the language of section 7(a) [of the FSLA, 29 U.S.C. § 707 (a) ] are clearly cognizable under that section, we believe that claims which rest on interpretations of the underlying collective bargaining agreement must be…”

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.