42 U.S.C. § 701
SHORT TITLE.
“This title may be cited as the ‘National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2000’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998).
Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Texas, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998). “§ 300 , which provides project grants to public and private agencies for family planning services; (2) Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, 42 U.S.C. § 701 (TANF, also known as the Welfare Reform Act), which provides grants to the states to assist needy families; (3) Title…”
Rickman v. Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 232 (M.D. Fla. 1995). “(Precisio-naire), and Gerhart constituted pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 701 (k) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.”
Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Wilmington Med. Ctr., Inc., 426 F. Supp. 919 (D. Del. 1977). “42 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. 8 . However, WMC evidently had decided that it would not pursue Plan Omega until it received the Secretary’s blessings.”
James R. SHERMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS Dep't OF Transp., Defendant-Appellee, 171 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 1999). “James Shermer appeals from summary judgment in favor of his employer, the Illinois Department of Transportation (“IDOT”), on his claim of sexual harassment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“Title VII”). We now affirm.”
Nat'l Ass'n v. Wilmington Med. Ctr., Inc., 453 F. Supp. 280 (D. Del. 1978). “42 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. 22 . Section 1122(a).”
Luther v. Gutierrez, 618 F. Supp. 2d 483 (E.D. Va. 2009). “, (iv) the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and (v) the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), 5 U.”
Valley Fam. Plan. v. North Dakota, 489 F. Supp. 238 (D.N.D. 1980). “§§ 300 through 300a-8; Title V of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 701 , et seq.; and Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.”
Nat'l Ass'n v. Wilmington Med. Ctr., Inc., 453 F. Supp. 330 (D. Del. 1978). “42 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. Actually, if the Secretary and WMC had been unable to achieve voluntary compliance and federal funds to WMC had been subsequently terminated, plaintiffs could plausibly contend that they had been cut off from medicare or medicaid assistance for which…”
Gaddis v. Wyman, 304 F. Supp. 717 (N.D.N.Y. 1969). “§§ 402 , 1201, 1381, and for Maternity and Child Welfare, 42 U.S.C. §§ 701 , et seq. Applicants for the latter types of assistance would not be required within one year after arrival to comply with the conditions imposed on applicants for home relief and AFDC.”
Colorado Gen. Assembly v. Lamm, 738 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1987). “In 1984, Colorado received $4,768,449 in federal funds under the maternal and child health services block grant, 42 U.S.C. §§ 701 — 709 (1982). The state supplied $10,337,787 for the same program in 1984.”
White v. Beal, 413 F. Supp. 1141 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “42 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. See also, 45 CFR § 249.”
Pierce v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 798 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “§§ 12101 , 12131, 12132; Administrative Procedure Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 701 ,702. OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT FIRESTONE, Judge.”
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.