TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United Indians of Nebraska v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary, Department of Labor

UNITED INDIANS OF NEBRASKA, Petitioner, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary, Department of Labor, Respondent

United Indians of Neb. v. Donovan, 702 F.2d 673 (8th Cir. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 25, 1983
Docket
No. 82-1286
Judges
McMillian, Henley, Fagg
Citations
702 F.2d 6731983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31077

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner United Indians of Nebraska applied to the Division of Indian and Native American Programs (DINAP) of the Department of Labor for grant funds for fiscal year 1981 under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, as amended, (CETA) to serve the Native American population of seven Iowa counties and seventeen Nebraska counties. Petitioner was initially awarded the requested funding for all of the counties except for one in Nebraska. After petitioner requested reconsideration of the initial funding decision DINAP upheld its denial of grant funds for the county in question and also determined that it had incorrectly awarded funding to petitioner for two other Nebraska counties. DINAP’s adverse decision was followed by a request for a hearing. In January, 1982 an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the denial of grant funds for all three counties.

1

Petitioner subsequently sought review of the administrative decision in this court.

It is clear from the record in this case that the fiscal year in question had expired by the time the matter wound its way through the appropriate administrative channels and a final administrative decision was rendered. In addition, CETA, the federal law authorizing the disbursement of grant funds for the benefit of Native Americans in this case, expired at the end of fiscal year 1982.

2

It is conceded that no retroactive relief can be given with respect to fiscal year 1981, and in light of the circumstances nothing that this court could decide on the merits or that the ALJ decided in his decision of January, 1982 can or should provide any precedent for future action. Therefore, we conclude that this case must be, and it is, dismissed as moot.

1

. The ALJ’s decision was the final decision of the Secretary in this case.

2

.

See S.Rep. No. 469, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in [1982] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2636, 2636.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 11986: 11987: 219852026peak 1987 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list