U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart G— Insurance and Annuities › Chapter CHAPTER 83— RETIREMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

5 U.S.C. § 5

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The amendments made by section 401 of the Civil Service Retirement Act Amendments of 1956 (70 Stat. 743–760; 5 U.S.C. 2251–2267) [amending provisions covered by this subchapter] may apply at the option of any employee who, prior to July 31, 1956, was separated from the service under the automatic separation provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act [this subchapter] but whose separation would not have taken effect until after July 30, 1965, if he had been permitted to remain in the service until the expiration of any accumulated or current accrued annual leave to his credit at the time of his separation from the service. Such option shall be exercised by a writing received in the Civil Service Commission before January 1, 1959.“(b) No increase in annuity provided by this Act or any prior provision of law shall apply in the case of any retired employee who exercises the option permitted by subsection (a) of this section.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1933–2026 · leading case: Nkihtaqmikon v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nkihtaqmikon v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (2010) med “The Court previously determined that NN’s counsel are entitled to attorney fees ' under 5 U.S.C. § 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). Second Order on Pl.”
Anderson v. P. W. Madsen Inv. Co. (1934) ca10 “168 ), 5 USCA § 5, Congress passed an act which reads in part as follows: “In case of the death, resignation, absence, or- sickness of the chief of any bureau, or of any officer thereof, whose appointment is not vested in the head of the department, the assistant or deputy of…”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States Department of Justice (2018) dcd “¢ 5 U.S.C. § 5 52(a)(2). By its terms, the entire-Act~»including the reading room provision-- ‘does not apply” to nine specific exemption categoriesl 5 U.”
E.G. v. United States Department of the Air Force (2018) dcd “” 5 U.S.C. § 5 52(b)(6). Thus, Exemption 6 requires an agency to prove both the nature of the files and that the files’ disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Controlled Air, Inc. v. Barr (2020) ctd “’ At Count Three of their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that this guidance as to the October 1 employment start date amounts to an unpublished regulation in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 5 [5]3(b). (Am. Compl. €4 58, 59.”
Black Hills Clean Water Alliance v. United States Forest Service (2024) sdd “5 U.S.C. § 5 (a)4)(E)Gi@. Because Plaintiff is eligible for attorney fees in BHCWA1, the Court must turn to the second step and determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees in that case.”
Black Hills Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service (2024) sdd “5 U.S.C. § 5 (a)4)(E)Gi@. Because Plaintiff is eligible for attorney fees in BHCWA1, the Court must turn to the second step and determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees in that case.”
Seth Hettena v. CIA (PUBLIC REISSUED OPINION) (2025) cadc “" 5 U.S.C. § 5 52(b)( l ). The CIA has relied on Executive Order 13,526, which covers (as relevant here) material pertaining to "intelligence activities (including covert action)," "intelligence sources or methods," and "foreign relations or foreign activities of the United…”
National Council of Prison Locals, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. (2026) ctd “The Complaint has a subheading for the First Amendment count that states, “Contrary to Constitution Right, 5 U.S.C. § 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(B).” This seems to be a clerical error, and the substance of the First Amendment count does not seek relief under the APA.”
Jackson v. Hood (2013) dcd “\ \ ~'l ‘i` ‘i JIM HOOD, Attorney General ) g for the State of Mississippi, ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION According to the plaintiff, the Offlce of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi refuses to produce certain public records pertaining to his criminal trial in response…”
Union Leader v. US Dept Homeland Sec. (2013) nhd “§ 5 5 2 , seeking to compel Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, to produce records of the names and addresses of six individuals ICE arrested in 2011. ICE filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter…”
Proposed Settlement of Diamond v. Department of Health & Human Services (1998) olc “OPM informed HHS that if HHS implemented this provision, OPM would, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5 1 11(a), revoke or suspend HHS’s authority to classify positions at CDC.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.