5 U.S.C. § 1
This Act [enacting section 5550a of this title and this note] may be cited as the ‘Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1978’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2024 · leading case: Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. Nat'l Park Serv., 630 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2011).
Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. Nat'l Park Serv., 630 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2011). “In this federal action, three related companies (collectively, "Dunn-McCampbell") seek declaratory relief under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., arguing that the Plan exceeds the Service's regulatory power over the Seashore because it denies…”
Gen. Eng'g, Inc., & Harvey Aluminum (Inc.) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 341 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1965). “sections 158 and 159, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 (1958) respectively. Rev.”
Dibacco v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 234 F. Supp. 3d 255 (D.D.C. 2017). “[277]. The parties did so, and subsequently filed and briefed a new round of cross-motions for summary judgment.”
R-GOSHEN LLC v. Vill. of Goshen, 289 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “The second count alleges that Defendants “Matthews,” Baxter’s, Nemeth, and others unknown to the Plaintiff conspired to prevent Plaintiff from establishing his CVS in Goshen in violation of the Sherman and Robinson Patman Acts, Í5 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 3 and 15. The latter claim has…”
United States v. Long, 2 C.M.A. 60 (1952). “” Turning to 5 USC § 1 , we find listed there, as the second Executive Department enumerated, “The Department of Defense.”
McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1993). “§ 552 (b)(1) (West 1977); (2) the declaration of FBI SA Angus Llewellyn regarding the material withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 , 2, 3, 6, 7(C)-(E) (West 1977 & Supp.”
United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 358 F. Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “The Government alleges that this constitutes a per se violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Act (Í5 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3). The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect and injunctive relief against continuation of such conduct in the future.”
Larson v. Harrington, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (E.D. Cal. 1998). “727 (1953); 5 U.S.C. § 1 (1953); 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6); Proposed Rules of Evidence approved by the Supreme Court November 1972, Rule 509, 56 F.”
Walling v. Comet Carriers, Inc., 3 F.R.D. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1944). “141, section 1, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1 ) and the provisions of chapter 1 of what became title 5 of the United States Code Annotated were made applicable to it, 5 U.”
Reed v. Franke, 297 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1961). “579 (1949), 5 U.S. C.A. § 1; Rev.Stat. § 159 (1875) as amended, 5 U.”
Cranfill v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 773 F. Supp. 943 (E.D. Tex. 1991). “Kirby’s share of the vacuum cleaner business (however the market is defined) is quite small. Because there is no evidence that Kirby fixed prices or that Kirby has any market power, summary judgment is required, as a matter of law, on Counts I, II, III, and IV.”
Larson v. Harrington, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (E.D. Cal. 1998). “727 (1953); 5 U.S.C. § 1 (1953); 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6); Proposed Rules of Evidence approved by the Supreme Court November 1972, Rule 509, 56 F.”
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.