42 U.S.C. § 102

DEFINITIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

“For purposes of this title:“(1) The term ‘Eklutna’ means the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project and related assets as described in section 4 and Exhibit A of the Eklutna Purchase Agreement.“(2) The term ‘Eklutna Purchase Agreement’ means the August 2, 1989, Eklutna Purchase Agreement between the Alaska Power Administration of the Department of Energy and the Eklutna Purchasers, together with any amendments thereto adopted before the enactment of this section [Nov. 28, 1995].“(3) The term ‘Eklutna Purchasers’ means the Municipality of Anchorage doing business as Municipal Light and Power, the Chugach Electric Association, Inc. and the Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.“(4) The term ‘Snettisham’ means the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project and related assets as described in section 4 and Exhibit A of the Snettisham Purchase Agreement.“(5) The term ‘Snettisham Purchase Agreement’ means the February 10, 1989, Snettisham Purchase Agreement between the Alaska Power Administration of the Department of Energy and the Alaska Power Authority and its successors in interest, together with any amendments thereto adopted before the enactment of this section.“(6) The term ‘Snettisham Purchaser’ means the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority or a successor State agency or authority.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. STME, LLC, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1207 (M.D. Fla. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. STME, LLC, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1207 (M.D. Fla. 2018). “Massage Envy also contends that the EEOC's association discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (b)(4) should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”

Max L. Krueger v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Sec'y of the Interior, 539 F.2d 235 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “2952 forbidding the issuance of prospecting permits for coal until further notice, as a consequence of which plaintiffs application was denied. “It is our further opinion that such order was not such a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment as to require…”

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Hughes, 437 F. Supp. 981 (D.D.C. 1977). “Although NEPA merely requires an agency to file a final impact statement, 42 U.S.C. § 102 (2)(C), the CEQ has severed the process into two parts, requiring a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).”

Rathore v. Kelly, 15 Mass. L. Rptr. 210 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “164, 176-78 (1989), the Supreme Court of the United States, in construing 42 U.S. C. §102 and §103), held that “rights to make and enforce contracts” included only two work-related rights: (1) the right to enter into an employment contract, and (2) the right to enforce the terms…”

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.