Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data. The legislation provides for binding arbitration. However, if the registrants fail to agree on compensation, the arbitrator's decision is subject to judicial review only for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct." The manufacturing firms engaged in the development and marketing of chemicals used in pesticides, appealed the EPA decisions and began proceedings in Federal District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the arbitration provisions. They argued EPA violated Article III of the Constitution by allocating to arbitrators the functions of judicial officers and by limiting
Lujan v. Defenders of wildlife 504 U.S. 555 (1992) Facts of the Case: Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 divides responsibilities regarding the protection of endangered species between the Secretary of the Interior (Manuel Lujan, D) and the Secretary of Commerce. The section requires each federal agency to consult with the appropriate Secretary to ensure that any action funded by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or habitat of any endangered or threatened species. Both Secretaries initially promulgated a joint regulation extending the section’s coverage to include actions taken in foreign nations; however, a subsequent joint rule limited the section’s scope to the United States and the
Unit I Case: Sackett v. EPA (2012). Anonymous Anonymous Facts: Michael and Chantell Sackett & Environmental Protection Act are the parties within the lawsuit disputing if the Sacketts are responsible for violating the Environmental Protection Act (Sackett v. EPA 2012). The disagreement was over the Sacketts challenging the issuance of a citation from the EPA because the Sacketts were violating the Clean Water Act by placing field material on the property. The Clean water act forbids the dumping of any contaminants by anybody without the proper certification permitting the discarded materials to be dumped in a body of water (Sackett v. EPA 2012). The Sacketts did not believe that their property violated the Clean Water act, requesting a hearing with the EPA, which was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (Sackett v. EPA 2012).
Pigs Fly: Federal Court Invalidates Myriad’s Patent Claims 9/13/10 9:20 PM Genomics Law Report News and analysis from the intersection of genomics, personalized medicine and the law A publication of the law firm Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson Pigs Fly: Federal Court Invalidates Myriad’s Patent Claims Posted by John Conley and Dan Vorhaus on March 30, 2010 Late on the afternoon of Monday, March 29, 2010, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a jaw-dropping summary judgment ruling (pdf) in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO that invalidates certain of Myriad Genetics’ patents related to the BRCA 1 and 2 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. In
Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. It was drafted following the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), which ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals), as established by the United States Department of Defence, were procedurally flawed and unconstitutional, and did not provide protections under the Geneva Conventions. It prohibited detainees who had been classified as enemy combatants or were awaiting hearings on their status from using "Habeas corpus" to petition federal courts in challenges to their detention. All pending habeas corpus cases at the federal district court were stayed.
225Case 25 1) The facts of the case: a) Who – The Company in this case is North Star Steel Company. The Union is United Steelworkers of America. The National Labor Relations Board is primarily involved with this case as well as the conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). b) Where / When – St. Paul, Minnesota on July 30, 1987 c) What / Why – The United Steelworkers of America was certified by the NLRB as the bargaining agent for 24 North Star employees on July 30, 1987. However, the company refused to acknowledge the certification and would not bargain and filed an exception with the Board on the union certificate.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The thing that stir debate is “partial-birth abortion”, in medicine it also called “dilation & extraction” (D&X) or “intact dilation and evacuation” (intact D&E). The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L.
What is the purpose of the documentary? The purpose of the documentary is to breakdown the beginning of certain events after the 9/11 terrorist attacks through the views of oil and regions that are major oil plants. 3. What is the main message the director wants to get across to the audience? The main message the director wants to get across is a new point of view about the war and current U.S foreign policy.
Paul Mattick explains in this article the development of arts in the nineteenth century and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) role. Mattick begins his article referring to the NEA, “On June 25, 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the so-called NEA Four... The high court’s decision was for all practical purposes the last act of a drama that had begun in 1989 with Congressional agitation against the NEA in response to complaints orchestrated by right-wing Christian outfits, notably Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association, against supposedly blasphemous and indecent artworks by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe which had been exhibited in NEA-supported institutions.” (Mattick, 521) “How has this happened, and what does it tell us about the place of arts in society at the present time?” (Mattick, 521) With this question Mattick begins to analyze the nineteenth century of arts. Mattick enforced the relation of art with economic and politics, essential to the survival of art.
The court of appeals reversed Ursery’s drug conviction and the forfeiture judgment, holding that the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. In reaffirming Ursery’s conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “ a forfeiture is not barred by a prior criminal proceeding after applying a two-part test asking, first whether Congress intended the particular forfeiture to be a remedial civil sanction or a criminal penalty, and second, whether the forfeiture proceedings are so punitive in fact to establish that they may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature, despite any congressional intent to establish a civil remedial mechanism. ” The court concluded that “civil