Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 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.
One of the most controversial cases was the Cipollone v Liggett Group. The Cipollone estate sued Liggett Group, a cigarette manufacturing company, because they concealed or misrepresented the dangers of cigarette smoking. Rose Cipollone started smoking in 1942 and switched brands because of Liggett’s advertising that their brand was safer than the others because of its “low tar” cigarette. After her death in 1984 from lung cancer her estate filed a lawsuit against the Liggett Group. The 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that suing the cigarette manufacturers was preempted because of the 1965 federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Public Health Cigarette Act of 1969, which bans smokers and the families of smokers from suing cigarette companies on the basis of state tort laws.
Constitutional Law Essay #1 Date September 23, 2012 How should the court decide PAM’s claim? Pam is challenging the Drug Act of being unconstitutional. First, State X is embarking on creating their own drug access program. State X needs to be aware of the federal constitutional limitations, the impact of the Medicaid program, and how the federal and state discount programs affect patient access to pharmaceutical care. The US Constitution imposes 2 principles of constraints on state pharmacy drug programs.
1. Congress passed a law imposing penalties for displaying "indecent" material online where children could see it. If the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently rules that the statute conflicts with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the statute is void. TRUE 2. Sandra sued her employer, Cape Inc., claiming that she was sexually harassed on the job.
Posner said. The shield against prosecution provided by the Bush legal team’s assurances has led some critics to focus on the role played by the lawyers themselves, like Mr. Cheney’s counsel, David S. Addington; Mr. Rumsfeld’s counsel, William J. Haynes II; and the authors of the Justice Department memorandums: John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury. Legal specialists from across the ideological spectrum have criticized those memorandums, especially a set written in 2002 by Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee, who is now a federal judge. Some have accused the lawyers of deliberately writing down a false reading of the law to enable policy makers to violate it with impunity. But there is little precedent for prosecuting government lawyers who provided arguably bad legal opinions.
Origins of the Bill of Rights | By: Leonard W.Levy | Nelson Fernandez3/11/15Per.6 | In today’s world of devious politics & manipulative politicians, it is more important to know your Constitutional Rights better than ever before. Leonard Levy’s book give great insight to what out United States Constitution written by our glorious Founding Fathers has guaranteed and safe guarded to all of us. The book gives insight on all the amendments and what they mean, where they bill of rights came from, skepticisms of people involved with this Bill of Rights, Leonard’s own opinion on the Bill of Rights. Despite the fact that Leonard put together of very informative, insightful book it is also very dull and takes much drudging to go through
Assignment 3: Constitutional Rights Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F.Supp. 63 (DMass. 1989) Facts, Issues, & Rule Lawrence Korb, (plaintiff) a Pennsylvania resident, originally brought this suit against the Raytheon Corporation, (defendant) a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. The complaint alleged, in the Middle-sex Superior Court, that Mr. Korb's employment by Raytheon was terminated wrongfully because of the exercise by plaintiff of his right of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article XVI of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (Korb v. Raytheon, 1989). “Mr.
Shyla Corson Professor Griffin English Composition 1102 16 March 2013 Article Analysis The proof type most noticeable to me in the “A Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control” article was Ethos. Ethos refers to the credibility of the author and is often conveyed through the tone of what is being said and also how the author speaks on different views. Ethan Bronner, the author, begins with the views of the government. He explains why the president along with the Supreme Court feel as if the new health care act is a good idea and their reasoning’s behind the creation and rulings in court cases. The information in the article wasn’t just made up, general statements however.
The Courts of Appeals which was vacated and the case were remanded for further proceedings. The justifications that the Supreme Court gave for its decision where as follows: That Raich’s physician could not provide evidence that Raich “cannot be without marijuana as medicine” because without it she would suffer quickly or she may even deteriorate and could very well die. The Supreme Court also stated “in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress acted within the bounds of its Commerce Clause authority when it criminalized that the purely intrastate manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act I feel that it was because the caregivers where the ones growing it because Ms. Raich could not do it herself because was confined to a wheelchair. That there is no Tenth Amendment violation in this case where Ms. Raich stated that her rights of the Tenth and Ninth among other Amendments were violated. The Supreme Court also stated “that even
“Privacy is the interest that individuals have in sustaining a ‘personal space’, free from interference by other people and organizations” (Clarke, 2007). An individual’s sex life seems to be the ultimate example of personal privacy, however, within the military guidelines, if you are a soldier and commit adultery; it is considered a criminal offense. “Adultery is a violation of one of the articles in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. But in order to be found in violation of the code, the affair must involve sexual intercourse, must involve someone who is legally married, and must hurt a unit or bring discredit among the armed forces” (“Unfaithful in uniform,” 2008). With this being said, if there is enough evidence, a soldier who has committed adultery can receive punishments directly from their commander, loose rank, be discharged from the military or even face a court-martial as a direct result of their personal sexual relationship.