5 U.S.C. § 502
Administrative practice; Reserves and National Guardsmen
Membership in a reserve component of the armed forces or in the National Guard does not prevent an individual from practicing his civilian profession or occupation before, or in connection with, an agency of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1976–2016 · leading case: Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,745 Dean Woods, & All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Covington Cnty. Bank, Edward Hoglund v. Covington Cnty. Bank, 537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976).
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,745 Dean Woods, & All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Covington Cnty. Bank, Edward Hoglund v. Covington Cnty. Bank, 537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976). “A similar intent to protect the civilian occupations of reservists is evident in the following provision: Any person who holds a position [in federal or private employment] shall not be denied retention in employment or any promotion or other incident or advantage of employment…”
Edward T. Splane & Paralyzed Vets. of Am. v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 216 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “We have authority, under 5 U.S.C. § 502 , to “directly review rules promulgated by [DVA], including substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy and interpretations of general applicability.”
Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 197 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D.D.C. 2016). “5 Further, because the plaintiffs failed to respond to the Corporation’s arguments with respect to the availability of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 (a)(2) (2012), see generally Pis.”
Reilly v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 643 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “This court also lacks, for that matter, jurisdiction over these claims under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 , et seq., as jurisdiction over claims relying upon that statute lies solely in the district courts.”
George C. Morgan v. United States Postal Serv. Des Moines Bulk Mail Ctr. Blades, Ken & William Lawson, 798 F.2d 1162 (8th Cir. 1986). “5 U.S.C. § 502 (b)(2) (1982). Furthermore, Morgan was aware of the procedures available to him.”
Watters v. Dep't of Just., 576 F. App'x 718 (10th Cir. 2014). “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 502 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C). Exemption 6 allows an agency to withhold “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Wolf v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 357 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2004). “In analyzing whether these agencies properly handled Wolfs FOIA request, the Court must determine: (1) whether an adequate search was conducted to locate documents responsive to Wolfs request; (2) whether the FOIA exemptions were properly applied; and (3) whether the agencies…”
Mobile Med. Int'l Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 706 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “643, 650 (2010) ("This court also lacks, for that matter, jurisdiction over these claims under the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 , et seq., as jurisdiction over claims relying upon that statute lies solely in the district courts.”
Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Dep't of the Navy, 686 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1988). “And it is of course well established that the review provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 , waives sovereign immunity for injunction actions.”
Moody v. Internal Revenue Serv., 527 F. Supp. 535 (D.D.C. 1981). “Document 19 and the Work Product Exemption Specifically, we are directed to determine (a) whether a government attorney violated professional standards applicable to members of the bar, and (b) if so, whether the unprofessional behavior vitiates the attorney work product…”
Elec. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 121 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 1997). “OPINION HUG, Chief Judge Appellant Blaylock Electric appeals from the denial by the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) of its application for an award of fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 et seq. (“EAJA”). Blaylock was the prevailing party in…”
Covert v. Redevelopment Auth., Etc., 447 F. Supp. 270 (M.D. Penn. 1978). “1977), the Court dealt with the applicability of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 502 (a)(3). No mention is made of whether Elrod 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.