5 U.S.C. § 6
SUNSET.
“Effective 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act [
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1927–2017 · leading case: Lindsay B. Shafer, Lewis Shafer, Joseph Shafer, & Lewis Shafer, Sr. v. United States, 229 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1956).
Lindsay B. Shafer, Lewis Shafer, Joseph Shafer, & Lewis Shafer, Sr. v. United States, 229 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1956). “1052, which was issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 6 , that in case of absence, sickness, &c.”
United States v. Shafer, 132 F. Supp. 659 (D. Maryland 1955). “1052, which was entered pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 6 , provides: “In the case of the absence, sickness, resignation, or death of both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Under Secretary of Agriculture, the Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture, in the order of precedence as…”
Perry v. Page, 67 F.2d 635 (1st Cir. 1933). “[5 USCA § 22], ‘the head of each department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not inconsistent with the law, for the distribution and performance of its business;’ and ‘in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the head of any department, the first or sole…”
Lew Shee v. Nagle, 22 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1927). “Section 177 provides that, in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the head of any department, the first or sole assistant thereof shall, unless otherwise directed by the President, as provided by section 179 (5 USCA § 6), perform the duties of such head until…”
Comm. on Masonic Homes v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 556 F.2d 214 (3rd Cir. 1977). “, AFL-CIO, adds exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 6 . The district court considered each of these exemptions and found none applicable.”
Midwest Television, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 426 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1970). “In this connection, however, he refused to take official notice of a transfer application of station KAAR, as requested by Midwest, commenting that “were the examiner to rest findings thereon, any party would be entitled to an opportunity to show the contrary, 5 U.S.C. § 6 (d)…”
Scutellaro v. Capitol Supply, Inc. (D.D.C. 2017). “8 The GSA OIG is empowered to issue subpoenas in connection with investigations of fraud and abuse in GSA programs pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 6 (a)(4). 15 The defendant filed a Notice of Compliance with Court Orders on September 2, 2014, certifying…”
Cent. Alabama Comprehensive Health Care, Inc. v. Aventis Pharm., Inc., 427 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (M.D. Ala. 2006). “As the defendants all but concede in their reply brief, the first requirement is not met because the OIG has authority only to investigate and report, 5 U.S.C. § 6 , and not to adjudicate or enforce.”
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.