5 U.S.C. § 501
Advertising practice; restrictions
An individual, firm, or corporation practicing before an agency of the United States may not use the name of a Member of either House of Congress or of an individual in the service of the United States in advertising the business.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985).
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). “This case presents the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency to exercise its "discretion" not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 501 et seq. (APA).…”
Florida Wildlife Fed'n Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 859 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2017). “For example, it would appear that the Conservationists could seek a remedy under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 , et seq. (“APA”), given the nature of their challenge to the LORS regulations 28 Case: 14-13392 Date Filed: 06/19/2017 Page: 29 of 52 litigation…”
Kenneth Fox v. Hillary Clinton, 684 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “The District Court assumed that the complaint stated a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. (2006). See Fox v.”
Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins., 672 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “6 In Heckler , the Supreme Court addressed “the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency to exercise its ‘discretion’ not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.” 470 U.S.…”
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “As neither FLPMA nor NEPA provides a private right of action, we review the Bureau’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship, 616 F.”
Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995). “Finally, CAN argues that the Commission’s actions violate its own precedents and regulations, in violation of the *287 Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. Athough we reject CAN’S Fifth Amendment arguments, we grant CAN’S petition for review on the other…”
Roland C. Dubois & Restore: The North Woods v. United States Dep't of Agric., & Loon Mountain Rec. Corp., 102 F.3d 1273 (1st Cir. 1996). “, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 , et seq. (“APA”), and Executive Order 11,-990, 42 Fed.”
Am. Acad. Pediatrics v. Food & Drug Admin., 379 F. Supp. 3d 461 (D. Maryland 2019). “The inmates filed suit, and the Supreme Court considered "the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency to exercise its 'discretion' not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 et…”
Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan Robert Robbins v. Ronald Reagan, 780 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “§ 1331 (1982), which gives district courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” This action cannot arise under the laws of the United States because there is no federal law to apply.”
Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Sally Jewell, 831 F.3d 564 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Because NEPA does not provide a private right of action, we review the Service’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v.”
Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015). “5 U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq. Specifically, the States assert that DAPA constitutes a “substantive” or “legislative” rule that was promulgated without the requisite notice and comment process required under Section 558 of the APA.”
Resident Council of Allen Parkway Vill. v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043 (5th Cir. 1993). “§ 1983 , and under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. The district court granted the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against HACH on April 13, 1989.”
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.