5 U.S.C. § 911
Discharge of committee considering resolution
If the committee to which is referred a resolution introduced pursuant to subsection (a) of section 910 (or, in the absence of such a resolution, the first resolution introduced with respect to the same reorganization plan) has not reported such resolution or identical resolution at the end of 75 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after its introduction, such committee shall be deemed to be discharged from further consideration of such resolution and such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the House involved.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1955–2012 · leading case: Baylor v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 331 (Ct. Cl. 1972).
Baylor v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 331 (Ct. Cl. 1972). “1109 (1954), 5 U.S.C. § 911 (1964), recodified 5 U.S.C.”
John Burich v. United States, 366 F.2d 984 (Ct. Cl. 1966). “Hours of work, in excess of the 40-hour administrative workweek, which have been “officially ordered or approved” must be compensated, according to 5 U.S.C. § 911 , at an hourly rate equal to one and one-half times the employee’s basic hourly compensation.”
John Doe v. United States, 372 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “295 (initially codified at 5 U.S.C. § 911 ; re-codified as amended at 5 U.”
Anderson v. United States, 201 Ct. Cl. 660 (Ct. Cl. 1973). “295 , 296, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 911 (1964). The Act authorizes overtime compensation only for “hours of work officially ordered or approved in excess of forty hours in any administrative work week”.”
McQuown v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 858 (Ct. Cl. 1972). “296 , 5 U.S.C. § 911 (a) (Supp. V. 1941-46); now amended and recodified in 5 U.”
Bates v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 362 (Ct. Cl. 1971). “1109 (1954), 5 U.S.C. § 911 (1964). It is my opinion that plaintiffs are entitled to recover, that judgment should be entered to that effect, with the amounts of recovery to be determined in further proceedings.”
Muller Optical Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 574 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Tenn. 1983). “5 U.S.C. § 911 . Thereafter, any member of the respective House could move to proceed to reconsideration of the disapproval resolution.”
Doe v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 404 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “1109 , 5 U.S.C. § 911 (1958)). Internal Revenue Service granted coverage under the new law for employees in all of its regions, then arbitrarily withdrew authority for premium pay in two of them.”
Bowling v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 968 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “1109 (1954), 5 U.S.C. §911 (1964). For the reasons set forth in the following detailed and ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is concluded that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover.”
Bull v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “295 (June 30, 1945) (initially codified at 5 U.S.C. § 911 ; re- *585 codified as amended at 5 U.”
Edward William Rapp v. The United States. Ward Roland Hawkins v. The United States, 340 F.2d 635 (Ct. Cl. 1964). “1109 , 5 U.S.C. § 911 (1958)), hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Pay Act”, provides in pertinent part: “All hours of work officially ordered or approved in excess of forty hours in any administrative workweek performed by officers and employees to whom this subchapter…”
Francis M. Fix v. United States, 368 F.2d 609 (Ct. Cl. 1966). “296 , 5 U.S.C. § 911 (1946), 4 and it is equally true of the irregular, unscheduled overtime now governed by the Federal Employees Pay Act Amendments of 1954, § 208(a), 68 Stat.”
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.