42 U.S.C. § 3
ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL OLYMPICS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: United States v. Jody Smith, Sr., 456 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Jody Smith, Sr., 456 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2011). “” 42 U.S.C. § 3 (d)(1)(A). If disability benefits are awarded, the SSA must periodically *205 conduct continuing disability reviews.”
Fahy v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins., 885 F. Supp. 678 (M.D. Penn. 1995). “Indeed, in Curtis , the Court held that there was a right to a jury trial where the relief sought included punitive damages under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3 601, et seq., which provided that “[t]he court may grant as relief .”
Burkholder v. Wykle, 268 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Ohio 2002). “A "sole-source aquifer” may be entitled to additional environmental protection under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3 OOf, et seq.. 25 .While not finding the FONSI improper, the Court notes that the instant project is not really an either/or proposition in that, upon…”
Iyaz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. (Fed. Cl. 2017). “as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. §3 00aa- l 5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of42 U.”
Iyaz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. (Fed. Cl. 2017). “as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C. §3 00aa- l 5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of42 U.”
Lester v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Lester" or "petitioner"), for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S. C. §3 00aa-10 et seq .3 (the "Vaccine Act" or " Program").”
Nunn v. Ely State Prison (D. Nev. 2024). “2 3 A litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 3 4 1983 civil-rights actions.”
Greene v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “42 U.S.C. § 3 (d)(2)(A). At the administrative level of review, the claimant’s case is considered under a five-step sequential evaluation process summarized as follows: 1.”
Haynes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “42 U.S.C. § 3 (d)(2)(A). At the administrative level of review, the claimant’s case is considered under a five-step sequential evaluation process summarized as follows: 1.”
Kane v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. (Fed. Cl. 2024). “ea Ith and I luman Serv ices from any and all ac tions or causes o r acti on (including agrce111cnts, juclgn1 cnts, claims, damages, loss o r·scr v iccs, ex penses and ni l demands o r w hatever ki nd or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be tim…”
Eulgen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. (Fed. Cl. 2026). “Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 3 00aa-15 (g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably…”
The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President & Cong. (OLC 1996). “568, 574 (1878)); see also D epartm ent o f Housing and Urban D evelopm ent — D elegations o f A uthority— 42 U.S.C. § 3 533, 3535, 2 Op. O.L.C. 87 , 89 (1978) (deputy assistant secretary, who is subject to direction by an assistant secretary, is “ unquestionably” an inferior…”
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.