holding that a $50 rule used by the Secretary of Education to evaluate applications for Impact Aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the APA because it was an interpretive rule, describing "the agency's view of the meaning of a statute"
Summary of this case from First Nat. Bk. of Lexington, Tenn. v. SandersNo. 87-897.
January 25, 1988, OCTOBER TERM, 1987.
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 829 F. 2d 293.
holding that a $50 rule used by the Secretary of Education to evaluate applications for Impact Aid by local school districts was not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the APA because it was an interpretive rule, describing "the agency's view of the meaning of a statute"
Summary of this case from First Nat. Bk. of Lexington, Tenn. v. Sandersfinding the typicality requirement met because the claims brought by the named plaintiffs and those brought on behalf of the class "stem from a single course of conduct"
Summary of this case from In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig.finding the typicality requirement met because the claims brought by the named plaintiffs and those brought on behalf of the class "stemmed from a single course of conduct"
Summary of this case from McGee v. Continental Tire North America, Inc.finding the typicality requirement met because the claims brought by the named Plaintiffs and those brought on behalf of the class "stem from a single course of conduct"
Summary of this case from In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust LitigationFull title:J. E. BERNARD CO. v. INGERSOLL MILLING MACHINE CO. ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 25, 1988
Specifically, former camp guards facing denaturalization frequently claim to have served involuntarily, been…
Kalejs v. I.N.S.We can easily dismiss most of these claims because there is no general right to discovery in a deportation…