holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required under the Rehabilitation Act
Summary of this case from Roe v. County Commission of Monongalia CountyNo. 83-1728.
June 18, 1984, OCTOBER TERM, 1983.
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 724 F. 2d 290.
holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required under the Rehabilitation Act
Summary of this case from Roe v. County Commission of Monongalia Countyaddressing how the Tribes could effect a transfer of the hunting and fishing rights it retained after termination
Summary of this case from Klamath Claims Committee v. United Statesconsidering whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over the declaration of Indian water rights on a reservation
Summary of this case from Confederated Salish v. Simonichdiving accident in national park
Summary of this case from Mattice v. U.S., Dept. of InteriorFull title:HOME BOX OFFICE, Inc., et al. v. CRIMPERS PROMOTIONS Inc
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jun 18, 1984
It is true that the great majority of courts which have considered the issue have held that the Double…
U.S. v. LevasseurZurichInsurance Co., 667 F.2d 1162 667 F.2d at 1167 See Matek v.Murat, 638 F. Supp. 775 782-83 Wadev.…