5 U.S.C. § 1105
Administrative procedure
Subject to section 1103(b) of this title, in the exercise of the functions assigned under this chapter, the Director shall be subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 553 of this title, notwithstanding subsection (a) of such section 553.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1981–1982 · leading case: Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “1111 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1105 ), which was enacted after BOP’s maximum age policy was put in place, requires the director of OPM to follow notice and comment rulemaking procedures “notwithstanding subsection (a) of section 553.”
Alaniz v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 545 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Alaska 1982). “5 U.S.C. § 1105 (Supp. IV 1980). . To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency…”
Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “1111 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 1105 ), which was enacted after BOP’s maximum age policy was put in place, requires the director of OPM to follow notice and comment rulemaking procedures “notwithstanding subsection (a) of section 553.”
Jean v. Meissner, 90 F.R.D. 658 (S.D. Fla. 1981). “Petitioners 1 filed an Emergency Habeas Corpus Petition under 5 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on 10 June 1981.”
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.