Date

Determination

City_State

Name

Snippet

Link

10/18/1979

REMANDED

BILL, WYOMING

A79-22

the Postal Service's Record and Order to Remand the Decision—— 1 1. Summaryrecord, we remand the decision

pdf

10/8/1991

AFFIRMED

ELSMERE, NEBRASKA

A91- 5

issues raised by the Commission in its remand. Having reviewed the Administrative RecordCommission remand opinion, we identified

pdf

6/18/1980

REMANDED

CONDON, MONTANA

A80-7

the postal patrons of Condon, Montana, we remand the decision to consolidate the Condonour duty to remand this decision

pdf

5/7/1979

REMANDED

 

A79-1 thru A79-9

Review of Individual Appeals and Remand to Postal Service for further constrained to remand these cases. (For

pdf

7/20/1979

REMANDED

 

A79-10 thru A79-21

1 Remand on the Issue of Community Effects II and Remand to Postal Service

pdf

11/14/1991

REMANDED

EXTENSION, LOUISIANA

A91- 9

been timely filed upon which to base this remand opinion. However, because the late-filedduring the remand process, we will

pdf

5/21/1986

REMANDED

SOUTH GRAFTON, MASSACHUSETTS

A86-10

filed a Reply to those Comments. We remand these proceedings to the Postal Service. Asand we remand the proceedings

pdf

8/1/2000

REMANDED

Roanoke, West Virginia

A2000-1

Commission that following the Commission's remand, little action was taken by the Postal Servicedecision to remand this matter

pdf

3/18/1986

REMANDED

FITZHUGH, OKLAHOMA

A86- 6

regarding the proposed closing. We remand these proceedings to the Postal Service. Asgrounds and we remand the proceedings

pdf

5/28/1980

AFFIRMED

MT. EDEN, CALIFORNIA

A80-4

avoid wasting time and expense through a remand which could not, on the present recordprocedure"- to remand the record

pdf

6/25/1986

AFFIRMED

CROYDON, UTAH

A86-14

for us, therefore, is whether we should remand in order to give the Service the opportunityfor us to remand to consider

pdf

10/31/1985

REMANDED

LOUVALE, GEORGIA

A85-22

substantial evidentiary support, we must remand. II. Commission Review A. Summaryfor our remand, is the patrons

pdf

2/25/1987

AFFIRMED

CENTERFIELD, UTAH

A87- 4

Op. A86-2, January 30, 1986. On remand, the Postal Service reconsidered the caseCommission's remand of the prior

pdf

10/17/1996

AFFIRMED

WEST RUSHVILLE, OHIO

A96-19

consider the following matters in any post-remand action: I. The use of the Westthat led to remand of the Postal

pdf

4/2/1990

AFFIRMED

HANOVER, ARKANSAS

A90- 2

Service but would be required to send (remand) it back to the Postal Service and the Servicewe will not remand the case but

pdf

5/3/1996

AFFIRMED

MORRISON, IOWA

A96- 9

concerns raised by the Commission in its remand decision in Docket No. A93-17. With respectCommission in its remand opinion of January

pdf

6/20/1986

AFFIRMED

OAKLAND, RHODE ISLAND

A86-12

detect errors of law. We cannot remand the case because we hold a different viewto affirm or remand the proceedings

pdf

9/30/1997

AFFIRMED

KINROSS, IOWA

A97-24

concerns raised by the Commission in its remand opinion in Docket No. A96-2. With respectCommission in its remand opinion of February

pdf

1/25/1993

REMANDED

WEST RUSHVILLE, OHIO

A93- 1

Defenbaugh on January 21, 1993. 2 We remand these proceedings to the Postal Service. Asany post-remand action: 1

pdf

12/16/1988

REMANDED

HONEY CREEK, IOWA

A88- 8

October 24, 1988. We have decided to remand this case to the Postal Service in orderis best to remand the case to

pdf

4/10/1980

AFFIRMED

ALEXANDER, WEST VIRGINIA

A80-2

the context of this case, we feel that a remand requiring the Service to make specific

pdf

8/21/1980

REVERSED

HUGGINS, MISSOURI

A80-9

community, and on postal services and we remand for further consideration of these issues

pdf

7/1/1981

AFFIRMED

DALTON, ARKANSAS

A81-1

indicated in our opinion in Alexander a remand requiring the Service to make specific

pdf

5/4/1982

AFFIRMED

DONNAN, IOWA

A82-4

4 – 12 – mechanical act to remand the proceeding on that basis alone. 1 7 Despite

pdf

9/16/1997

AFFIRMED

KINGS CREEK, SOUTH CAROLINA

A97-21

finds no due process violation mandating remand of the proposal. However, the Commission

pdf

9/23/1997

AFFIRMED

RAGO, KANSAS

A97-19

do not constitute sufficient grounds for remand of the Postal Service's Final Determination

pdf

2/12/1997

AFFIRMED

ATLANTIC, MAINE

A97- 2

housed. Under these circumstances a remand would result in administrative inconvenience

pdf

7/23/1996

AFFIRMED

KEMP, OKLAHOMA

A96-13

not constitute sufficient grounds for remand of the Postal Service's Final Determination

pdf

6/5/1996

AFFIRMED

BRUINGTON, VIRGINIA

A96-10

deficiency in this respect does not warrant a remand of the Final Determination; however, the

pdf

3/21/1996

AFFIRMED

CLARKIA, IDAHO

A96- 6

concerns raised by the Commission in its remand opinion of August 1, 1995 (PRC Op. A95-9

pdf

12/28/1995

AFFIRMED

TAINTOR, IOWA

A95-20

important consideration in the Commission's remand with respect to Filer City and is a matter

pdf

11/9/1995

AFFIRMED

STRANG, NEBRASKA

A95-16

concerns raised by the Commission in its remand opinion of October 28,1994 (PRC Op. A94

pdf

6/22/1995

AFFIRMED

NUMA, IOWA

A95- 4

these discrepancies do not warrant a remand, the Commission urges the Postal Service

pdf

8/3/1994

REMANDED

BENEDICT, MINNESOTA

A94- 8

Reorganization Act [39 USC sec. 404(b»). We remand the Postal Service's decision to consolidate

pdf

3/15/1994

AFFIRMED

INAVALE, NEBRASKA

A94- 3

VICB CBAIRKAB LBBLABC We would remand this matter to the Postal Service for further

pdf

3/7/1994

AFFIRMED

EXTENSION, LOUISIANA

A94- 2

additional information gathered after the remand, we find that the Postal Service has supported

pdf

1/13/1994

REMANDED

GRAY, IOWA

A93-18

Reorganization Act [39 U.S.C. § 404(b)]. We remand the Postal Service's decision to close the

pdf

1/5/1994

REMANDED

MORRISON, IOWA

A93-17

Center, Iowa post office. Instead, we remand the decision to the Postal Service for further

pdf

2/9/1993

REMANDED

FRONTENAC, MINNESOTA

A93- 7

Reorganization Act [39 U.S.C. § 404(b)). We remand the Postal Service's decision to consolidate

pdf

9/27/1990

REMANDED

WOLF RUN, OHIO

A90- 4

information and given that our decision to remand can rest sufficiently on the issue cited

pdf

1/17/1989

AFFIRMED

BANCO, VIRGINIA

A88- 9

is harmless and provides no grounds for remand. Petitioners have questioned the Postal

pdf

9/9/1988

REMANDED

RAGO, KANSAS

A88- 2

this pleading on July 26, 1988. We remand these proceedings to the Postal Service. As

pdf

3/18/1986

AFFIRMED

SANITARIA SPRINGS, NEW YORK

A86- 4

for the first time on appeal require a remand. Nothing in the comments on the proposal

pdf

1/30/1986

REMANDED

CENTERFIELD, UTAH

A86- 2

supported findings on this issue requires a remand for further consideration. We do not

pdf

9/21/1983

AFFIRMED

BAXTER, CALIFORNIA

A83-22

contentions, as we shall now explain, requires a remand. An independent post office must serve

pdf

 

Print Friendly