42 U.S.C. § 151
BUDGETARY AUTHORITY.
“With respect to fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the Directors of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute of Mental Health shall notwithstanding section 405(a) [42 U.S.C. 284(a)], prepare and submit, directly to the President for review and transmittal to Congress, an annual budget estimate (including an estimate of the number and type of personnel needs for the Institute) for their respective Institutes, after reasonable opportunity for comment (but without change) by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Institute’s advisory council.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1986–2019 · leading case: Ladd v. Chemonics Int'l, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2009).
Ladd v. Chemonics Int'l, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2009). “utomobile accident; (2) Chemonics agreed to provide Plaintiff with life insurance benefits and to pay Plaintiffs COBRA premiums after he was terminated from Chemonics, but has failed to do so and is therefore in breach of the parties’ agreement; (3) Plaintiff is owed additional…”
Vonderhaar v. At&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 372 F. Supp. 3d 497 (E.D. Ky. 2019). “The specific laws allegedly at issue are: (a) the Communications Act of 1934, 42 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. ; (b) Truth-in-Billing Requirements, 47 C.”
Robinson v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 645 F. Supp. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs Donald Robinson, Charles Adams, James Wolfanger, Karl Rahn and Ronald Fregara 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) on the grounds that their complaint is barred by the statute of limitations on their Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) claim, 42 U.S.C. § 151…”
Ladd v. Chemonics Inc (D.D.C. 2009). “automobile accident; (2) Chemonics agreed to provide Plaintiff with life insurance benefits and to pay Plaintiff’s COBRA premiums after he was terminated from Chemonics, but has failed to do so and is therefore in breach of the parties’ agreement; (3) Plaintiff is owed…”
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.