45 U.S.C. § 797
Repealed. Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, § 4024(c), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1904
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1982–1992 · leading case: John Roberts Martin Shirley Mae Martin Bernard J. Spanski & Margaret L. Spanski v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 877 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1989).
John Roberts Martin Shirley Mae Martin Bernard J. Spanski & Margaret L. Spanski v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 877 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1989). “NERSA eliminated approximately 4,600 ConRail positions, 4 and replaced the “extremely costly [employee] protection scheme set forth in Title V of the [3R Act]”, 5 with Title VII of NERSA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 797 -797m. Martin and Spanski were eligible for Title VII benefits under 45 U.”
Herbert v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “Upon the enactment of the Northeast Rail Service Act (“NERSA”) in 1981, in which Congress repealed Title V and replaced it with Title VII, 45 U.S.C. § 797 et seq., former Conrail employees who had been entitled to benefits under Title V became eligible for benefits under the new…”
Carol M. Herbert & Henry W. Herbert v. United States, 850 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1988). “661 -69 (codified as amended at 45 U.S.C. § 797 et seq. (1982 & Supp. IV 1986)).”
Ry. Labor Executives'ass'n v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 1554 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1983). “Section 1143 enacted new labor protection provisions (in the form of a new Title VII to the RRR Act, 45 U.S.C. § 797 et seq. ). Section 1144 of NRSA repealed Title V's employee protection provisions.”
Irving Felton v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 952 F.2d 59 (3rd Cir. 1992). “See 45 U.S.C. § 797 . See also 45 U.S.C. §§ 588 , 590.”
Ry. Lab. Executives'ass'n v. Grand Trunk Wr Co., 594 F. Supp. 758 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1984). “45 U.S.C. § 797 et seq. It did not provide for any replacement benefits for employees of acquiring railroads.”
United Transp. Union, Local 74 v. Consol. Rail Corp., United Transp. Union, 881 F.2d 282 (6th Cir. 1989). “Title V was replaced by Title VII, 45 U.S.C. § 797 (1982), which provided a displaced worker with benefits not to exceed $20,000 over his lifetime.”
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Reading Co., 654 F. Supp. 1318 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1987). “For example, § 701(b), 45 U.S.C. § 797 (b), states that government funds may be provided for, inter alia: (1) Allowances to employees deprived of employment.”
Ratkosky v. United Transp. Union, 843 F.2d 869 (6th Cir. 1988). “Title V was replaced by Title VII, 45 U.S.C. § 797 (1982), which provided for more modest benefits with a lifetime limit of $20,000 for each displaced worker.”
Beardsly v. Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., 850 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1988). “13 45 U.S.C. § 797 , which corresponds to Title VII of the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981, Pub.”
Atkins v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 654 F. Supp. 685 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1987). “MEMORANDUM GASCH, Presiding Judge: Plaintiffs appeal from the Railroad Retirement Board’s decision to deny them *686 benefits under 45 U.S.C. § 797 , Section 701 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (“3R Act”) as amended in 1981.”
Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R., 959 F.2d 1361 (6th Cir. 1992). “This conclusion is bolstered by the number of times in the Act that the term “employees of the Corporation” is used. 7 This indicates that Congress intentionally differentiated between employees of the Corporation and employees in a more general sense.”
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.