42 U.S.C. § 212

CONDITIONS OF CONSENT TO COMPACTS.

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

“The consent of the Congress to each of the compacts set forth in subtitle B—“(1) shall become effective on the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 15, 1986];“(2) is granted subject to the provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 2021b–2021j]; and“(3) is granted only for so long as the regional commission, committee, or board established in the compact complies with all of the provisions of such Act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1950–2023 · leading case: Waller v. United States, 180 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Waller v. United States, 180 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1950). · cites it 4× “688 (1944), 42 U.S.C. § 212 (a) (1946), 42 U.S.C.A. § 212 (a) and 58 Stat.”

Wainwright v. Wainwright, 888 P.2d 762 (Alaska 1995). “42 U.S.C. § 212 (1991). 5 . Under current law this rate is 120% of the federal midterm rate (I.”

Wallace v. Wallace, 677 P.2d 966 (Haw. App. 1984). “Although Husband has been entitled to retire and receive benefits since July 1982 when he completed thirty years of service, 42 U.S.C. § 212 (a)(2), he has not retired, has no present intention to retire, and so far as we know, is not required to retire at any age or length of…”

Thomas v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). · cites it 11× “See 42 U.S.C. § 212 (a)(4). Initially, the government credited Plaintiff with (1) three and a half years for civil service, (2) sixteen and a half years for service as a commissioned officer, and (3) one and a half years for her education.”

Keats v. Sebelius (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 2× “Page 8 of 14 the retiree to recall,6 42 U.S.C. § 212 (c), as well as allow the retiree to collect retirement income and take advantage of veteran’s benefits, such as health insurance and loans.”

Myrick v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 472 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 3× “On May 13, 2008, Plaintiff filed an *475 Amended Complaint alleging that the PHS (“the Government”) violated 42 U.S.C. § 212 , et seq., 3 and 10 U.S.C.”

Huckaba v. Dept. of Rev., 7 Or. Tax 81 (Or. T.C. 1977). “(33 USC §§ 853k, 857-3, and 857-5; 42 USC § 212 .) This is an attack by plaintiff on a part of defendant’s published rule, OAR 150-316.”

Jacobs v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 1141 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “at page 688; 42 U.S.C. §212 (1946)), the Congress enacted a set of retirement provisions for all officers of the Public Health Service.”

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.