Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case:
Amos v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 724 (Ct. Cl. 1991).
Amos v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 724 (Ct. Cl. 1991).
· cites it 14× “After considering the parties’ arguments, the court concludes that under the CSRA’s savings provision, 5 U.S.C. § 7135 , and Executive Order 11491 (E.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 834 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
· cites it 3× “They therefore might be deemed statutorily required by the Statute’s grandfather provision, 5 U.S.C. § 7135 (b), not merely the result of a “permissible” interpretation of the Statute, given the profoundly ambiguous connection between the negotiability *202 appeals procedure and…”
Ohio Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA, 598 U.S. 449 (2023).
· cites it 2× “B The evolution of federal agency-employee relations law and the text of 5 U. S. C. § 7135 (b), which functions as the Page Proof Pending Publication Statute's saving clause, lend further support to the FLRA's exercise of authority over the Guard.”
James A. Albright v. United States, 10 F.3d 790 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
· cites it 3× “5 U.S.C. § 7135 (1988). In accordance with this section, the rights of labor and management do continue to be governed by lawful agreements, as long as their negotiated grievance procedures do not conflict with a statute.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 691 F.2d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
“5 U.S.C. § 7135 (b) (Supp. IV 1980). We discern in this language no impediment to changed statutory interpretations by the Authority, for this provision in terms preserves the efficacy of rulings under preexisting executive orders only to the extent that they are not “superseded…”
Dep't of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
· cites it 2× “This claim rests principally upon 5 U.S.C. § 7135 (b), which states in pertinent part that “decisions issued under Executive Order[] 11491 * * * shall remain in full force and effect * * * unless superseded by specific provisions of this chapter or by regulations or decisions…”
United States Dep't of Energy v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 880 F.2d 1163 (10th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 3× “If Congress had wanted to allow mixed units of supervisors and non-supervisors, it logically would have used the word “including” or the word “containing” instead of the word “of,” or it specifically could have referred to mixed units. 7 The legislative history tracks the…”
Albright v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1119 (Ct. Cl. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Two other sections of the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. § 7135 (1988) and a note to 5 U.”
Fed./Postal/Retiree Coalition v. Devine, 751 F.2d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The complicating feature in this otherwise clearly delineated set of roles is Title VII’s grandfather provision, 5 U.S.C. § 7135 , a provision of pivotal importance to *207 the resolution of this case.”
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 855 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1988).
“See 5 U.S.C. § 7135 (b) (“[policies, regulations, and procedures established under and decisions issued under” the Executive Order remain in force “until revised or revoked by the President, or unless superseded by specific provisions of this [Act] or regulations or decisions…”
Graczyk v. United Steelworkers of Am., 763 F.2d 256 (7th Cir. 1985).
“, Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 7135 (a); ERISA, 26 U.S.C. § 410 note (effective date and transitional rules), 29 U.”
— 5 U.S.C. § 7135(b) — 1 case
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.