42 U.S.C. § 209
PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT OF FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
[Amended section 4015 of this title.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 209 (a)(2) (1970), appellant’s reserve commission in the Service *191 was granted for an indefinite period and could be terminated at any time as the President might direct.”
Lal v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 821 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Lai’s removal because she had been appointed' pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 209 (f), “without regard to the civil-service laws.”
Brian Chu, M.D., James R. Gross, D.O., Khadijah Hamdallah, M.D., Staley Jackson, M.D., & Gregory Lower, D.O. v. The United States, 773 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “) These statutory provisions include 42 U.S.C. § 209 (a)(2) (1982) which states in pertinent part, “[r]eserve commissions shall be terminated at any time, as the President may direct.”
Durand Hedin v. Tommy G. Thompson, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 355 F.3d 746 (4th Cir. 2004). “active commissioned service in the Service”); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 209 (d)(3)-(4), 211(j)(l)-(2), 212(a)(3), 212(a)(4)(A)-(B), 212(a)(5), 212(f) (2000).”
Verbeck v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 47 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 209 (a)(2); see 42 U.S.C. § 216 (a) (giving the President the authority to “prescribe regulations with respect to the .”
Daniel Moncada v. Exec. Off. of the President, Off. of Admin., 2022 MSPB 25 (MSPB 2022). “4 , ¶ 9 (2006) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 209 (f), which uses both the words “employed” and “appointed,” clearly distinguishes between the two).”
Physicians' Educ. Network, Inc., for & on Behalf of Its Members v. The Dep't of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 653 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “In addition to allegedly violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Federal Personnel Manual, plaintiff alleges that defendant’s conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 209 (f) and § 1395, Pub.L. No.”
Jane Malloy v. Dep't of State, 2022 MSPB 14 (MSPB 2022). “¶11 In Lal, our reviewing court addressed the question of whether, in light of the Due Process Amendments, the appointing authority of 42 U.S.C. § 209 (f) excluded the appellant in that case from chapter 75 protections.”
Chu v. Schweiker, 690 F.2d 330 (2d Cir. 1982). “” 42 U.S.C. § 209 (a)(2) (1976). In addition, the regulations promulgated by the Secretary governing the termination of such reserve officers provide: All individuals called to active duty in the PHS reserve corps are required to *333 serve a three-year probationary period.”
Jones v. Schweiker, 554 F. Supp. 1195 (E.D. La. 1983). “As the Government has pointed out in its Supplemental Response Memorandum, plaintiffs overlook the fact that the Chu court cited the Commission Corps Personnel Manual in addition to primarily citing 42 U.S.C. § 209 (a)(2) which states in part that “Reserve commissions shall be…”
Renu B. Lal v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2015). “BACKGROUND ¶2 The appellant was appointed as a Distinguished Consultant in the excepted service pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 209 (f). 2 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 10-11.”
Sewell v. Celebrezze, 216 F. Supp. 192 (D.S.D. 1963). “42 U.S.C.A. § 209 . See also the court’s reference in Brannon v.”
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.