LEGISLATION-STATUTES IN PARI MATERIA-ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD RULINGS

Authors

Robert B. Krueger, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Lane's application for an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act to the lower adjudicative branches of the Railroad Retirement Board was denied. Lane, by claiming that a "grievance" had been created by the railroad's insistence that he had voluntarily resigned from its service in 1933, then brought the matter before the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which found that Lane had been an "employee" of the railroad from 1905 to 1937. When Lane's case was subsequently heard before the Retirement Board, the findings of the lower adjudicative branches of the Board were affirmed and the Board held that it was not bound by the findings of the National Railroad Adjustment Board in determining whether Lane was entitled to an annuity. On petition to review the findings of the Retirement Board that Lane was not entitled to an annuity, held, affirmed. The statutes are not to be read in pari materia for the purpose of determining who is an "employee'' under the Railroad Retirement Act. Lane v. Railroad Retirement Board, (6th Cir. 1950) 185 F. (2d) 819.

Recommended Citation

Robert B. Krueger, LEGISLATION-STATUTES IN PARI MATERIA-ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD RULINGS, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 614 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss4/16