5 U.S.C. § 1005
Responsibilities of the President
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
1005 | 5 U.S.C. App. (FACA § 6(a), (b)) | Pub. L. 92–463, § 6(a), (b), Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 772. |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases, 1949–2009 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U.S. 258 (1970).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U.S. 258 (1970). “240 , 5 U. S. C. § 1005 (a), now 5 U. S. C. § 555 (b) (1964 ed.”
Comm'r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2009). “This exemption from formal adjudication was deemed appropriate because the agency's judgment would be effective "only in a prima facie sense at most," as the aggrieved party would be entitled to judicial retrial in the Tax Court.”
United States v. Van Allen, 28 F.R.D. 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). “As to item (b), under 5 U.S.C.A. § 1005 (b), Stahl is entitled to anything he gave the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a subpoena.”
In Re Groban, 352 U.S. 330 (1957). “[23] 5 U. S. C. § 1005 (a). [24] S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong.”
United States v. Fancher, 195 F. Supp. 448 (D. Conn. 1961). “240 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1005 (b), in relevant part, provides : “Every person compelled to submit data or evidence shall be entitled to retain or, on payment of lawfully prescribed costs, procure a copy or transcript thereof, except that in a nonpublic investigatory proceeding…”
St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208 (1962). “241 , 5 U. S. C. § 1005 (c), authorized the procedure the court followed, *225 i.”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Taft B. Schreiber & McA Inc., Appellees-Cross-Appellants, 329 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1964). “Whether the District Court erred in concluding that under Section 6(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1005 (a), appellees have the following rights: (a) The right to have their counsel object to any questioning by the Commission, its counsel, or the presiding…”
United States v. Edwin Murray, 297 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1962). “, and Section 6(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1005 (b). 4 Judge Edelstein held that the defense had made insufficient showing of the “materiality” required for discovery under Rule 16, that pretrial inspection pursuant to subpoena was unavailable under…”
Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). “240 ; 5 U. S. C. § 1005 (a). Although the act thus disavows any.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. W. W. Tuttle, Resident Manager, Ernst & Ernst, 244 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1957). “(3) That in view of the hardship it would impose on Ernst & Ernst if they are required to disclose this confidential information, which they assert is merely hearsay and not competent proof in the Spalding matter, enforcement of the subpoena would violate Section 6(c) of the…”
Hyser v. Reed, 318 F.2d 225 (D.C. Cir. 1963). “8 Suffice it to point out with regard to appellants’ claim to appointed counsel, that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1005 (a), if it were held to apply, provides only that a person compelled to appear before an agency “shall be accorded the right to be accompanied,…”
Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Donovan, 274 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1960). ““Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act” at page 264 points out that § 6(a) of the APA, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1005 (a), note 30, supra, was enacted to make certain that “no agency shall, in effect, deny relief or fail to conclude a a case by mere inaction, or proceed in…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 1005(a) — 1 case
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Inc., 305 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1962).
— 5 U.S.C. § 1005(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Van Allen, 28 F.R.D. 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). “As to item (b), under 5 U.S.C.A. § 1005 (b), Stahl is entitled to anything he gave the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a subpoena.”
Wagman v. Arnold, 152 F. Supp. 637 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).
Leeds & Northrup Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 357 F.2d 527 (3rd Cir. 1966).
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.