42 U.S.C. § 501
The Energy Research and Development Administration shall not ship plutonium in any form by aircraft whether exports, imports, or domestic shipment: Provided, That any exempt shipments of plutonium, as defined by section 502, are not subject to this restriction. This restriction shall be in force until the Energy Research and Development Administration has certified to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of the Congress that a safe container has been developed and tested which will not rupture under crash and blast testing equivalent to the crash and explosion of a high-flying aircraft.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1937–2025 · leading case: California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982).
California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982). “§ 49d(b); 42 U. S. C. § 501 . [6] See Employment Security Amendments of 1970, Pub.”
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). “IV); 42 U. S. C. §501 et seq.; 42 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq.”
Ohio Bureau of Emp. Servs. v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471 (1977). “*482 Ill Pre-emption Appellee argues that the Ohio statute is in conflict with, or pre-empted by, certain provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 501 et seq., and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U.”
New York Tel. Co. v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 440 U.S. 519 (1979). “, 42 U. S. C. § 501 et seq., § 1101 et seq.”
Anna Ross v. John Horn, Comm'r, Div. of Emp. Sec., Dep't of Labor & Indus. of the State of New Jersey, 598 F.2d 1312 (3rd Cir. 1979). “THE CHALLENGED PROCEDURES The following background to these proceedings was succinctly set forth by the court below: New Jersey participates in the jointly-funded federal-state unemployment compensation program established by Title III of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 501…”
Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 174 So. 516 (Ala. 1937). “In this connection we observe that title III of the Act ( 42 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq.) makes an appropriation out of which the Social Security Board, created by the act, will certify for payment to each state for the administration of its unemployment compensation law an amount to…”
Commonwealth v. Morris, 575 A.2d 582 (Pa. 1990). “§ 421 , Disability determinations. This is the title that contains the allegedly preemptive statute in question, § 408.”
Klimko v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 222 S.E.2d 559 (Va. 1976). “42 U.S.C. §§ 501 , et seq. Under Code § 60.”
Torres v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 321 F. Supp. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). “HAYS, Circuit Judge: The complaint in this action alleges the deprivation of rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by parts of the Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. (1964). Plaintiffs seek a…”
Acosta v. Brown, 213 Cal. App. 4th 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “BACKGROUND The California Unemployment Insurance Program The California unemployment insurance program is part of a national program established under the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.), the Federal Unemployment Tax Act ( 26 U.”
Macias v. New Mexico Dep't of Labor, 300 F.R.D. 529 (D.N.M. 2014). “The Court has already concluded that the Order did not incorporate the Agreement, so the Court’s rule 60(b)(5) analysis must be careful not to equate enforcement of the Agreement—which unquestionably binds NMDOL—with enforcement of the Order—which merely restates the parties’…”
unempl.ins.rep. Cch 22,027 Bonita Paschal v. Sally Jackson, Dir. of the Illinois Dep't of Emp. Sec., 936 F.2d 940 (7th Cir. 1991). “42 U.S.C. §§ 501 , 502 and 1101(c)(l)(A)(i).”
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.