5 U.S.C. § 2001
SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
[Omitted.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1955–1985 · leading case: Albert J. Lovshin v. Dep't of the Navy, 767 F.2d 826 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Albert J. Lovshin v. Dep't of the Navy, 767 F.2d 826 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “A provision relating to removal based on an “unsatisfactory” rating has been part of the evaluation chapter since the Performance Rating Act of 1950, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq. (1952). 2 The 1950 statute stated that an “unsatisfactory” performance rating “shall serve as…”
Grover v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 337 (Ct. Cl. 1973). “The court views this issue as quite similar to the holdings of those cases in which the plaintiffs attempted to overturn discharges that otherwise met the requirements of the Lloyd-La Follette Act or the Veterans’ Preference Act, simply because some of the requirements of the…”
Charles S. Thomas, Sec'y of the Dep't of the Navy v. William E. Ward, 225 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1955). “1098 (1950), 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2001 et seq. . 5 U.S.C.A. § 2005 provides in part: “No officer or employee shall be rated unsatisfactory without a ninety-day prior warning: and a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate satisfactory performance.”
Seebach v. Cullen, 224 F. Supp. 15 (N.D. Cal. 1963). “As to plaintiff’s contentions concerning the fact that she received satisfactory efficiency ratings during the period of misconduct charged in the letter dated February 19, 1962, and that she did not receive a 90-day notice of a proposed unsatisfactory efficiency rating, as…”
Allen v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 598 (Ct. Cl. 1961). “…It is so ordered. Dureee, Judge; Laramore, Judge; Whitaker, Judge; and Jones, Chief Judge, concur. 5 U.S.C. § 652 . 5 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq.”
John J. McGinty v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney Gen. of the United States, 249 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1957). “…cause as will promote the efficiency of such service and for reasons given in writing.” 4 . 64 Stat. 1098 (1950), 5 U.S.C.A. § 2001 et seq.”
Leslie L. Barger v. L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Cong., 265 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1959). “1098 , 5 U.S.C. § 2001 , 5 U.S.C.A. § 2001 ; and Government Employees’ Incentive Awards Act of 1954, c.”
Collins v. United States, 145 Ct. Cl. 382 (Ct. Cl. 1959). “…will be dismissed. It is so ordered. Laramore, Judge/ Maddest, Judge, and Whitaker, Judge, concur. 64 Stat. 1098 ; 5 U.S.C. § 2001 (1952 ed.).”
Saggau v. Young, 138 F. Supp. 140 (D.D.C. 1956). “Plaintiff contends finally that his dismissal was invalid for failure to comply with the Performance Rating Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 2001 et seq. In view of the decision in Thomas v.”
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.