Legal Opinion
Movitz v. Division of Employment & Training
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided August 15, 1991No. 91CA0259PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge METZGER.
Neil Movitz, claimant, seeks review of the final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Panel, which ruled that 19 U.S.C. § 2296(a) (1988) and 20 C.F.R. 617.22(h) (1990) did not permit use of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) funds to pay a portion of his law school tuition. He contends that the statute and regulation create an arbitrary classification that denies him equal protection of the laws. We affirm.
TAA funds are provided under the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. (1988), to pay for retraining workers adversely affected by foreign competition. 19…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Schweiker v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Tafflin v. LevittSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers v. BrockSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public SchoolsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pace Membership Warehouse v. AxelsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
- Jilot v. StateColorado Court of Appeals · 1996
- Alfaro v. Industrial Claim Appeals OfficeColorado Court of Appeals · 2003
- Telluride Co. v. VarleyColorado Court of Appeals · 1997