This case was also cited in PEABODY COAL CO., LLC v. BARNHART., 469 F.Supp.2d 240 (2007) case held in the United States District Court, D. Delaware. The decision on this case was made on January 11, 2007. According to this case, on September 14, 2005, the plaintiffs Peabody Coal Company, LLC (“Peabody”) and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation ("EACC") filed suit against defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("Barnhart"), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). Plaintiffs' complaint that Barnhart's (defendant) actions of assigning them (plaintiffs) the responsibility for funding health and death benefits for certain retired coal industry employees violated both § 9706 of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 ("Coal Act"), 26 U.S.C. …show more content…
§§ 551-559, 701-706. The court referred to the Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, case stating the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner while accepting the coal companies argument that the specified date for action is jurisdictional, and could be to read as an act to allocate not the greatest, but the least, number of beneficiaries to a responsible operator. However, the congressional objective behind the Coal Act, is to read the statutory date as a “spur to prompt action”, not as a bar to tardy completion of the business. The court stated that the Commissioner's decision was within her authority and entitled to deference, and followed the statutory hierarchy laid out in § 9706 demonstrating that the commissioner’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court agrees with the reasoning employed by the other federal courts which have addressed this issue and finds that the Commissioner's interpretation of the Coal Act, as well as commissioner subsequent decision to reassign beneficiaries to plaintiffs, was neither unambiguously forbidden by the statute nor beyond the bounds of the
For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).
The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an
The case Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. v. Douglas Castro asserts that Douglas Castro, a former
Jan Hughes, Plaintiff-Appellant v, Boston Scientific corporation, Defendant-Apellee., 631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011)
The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.
On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s
Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)
evidence. ~(RT 212)~ The prosecution also played portions of the recording during closing arguments. ~(RT 323)~
The case of Morse et al. v. Frederick was argued by the Supreme Court in 2007. This was a First Amendment case, centered on the basic right of freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue took place during a High School assembly event. A group of students had displayed a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The High School Principal (Morse) saw this as an illegal drug reference, and was responsible for eliminating such references as outlined in the school’s policy. That being taken into consideration, Principal Morse promptly demanded the students to take down banner, upon which one student who brought the banner (Frederick) refused. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and additionally suspended Frederick from school. The school superintendent and the school board both supported the suspension by Principal Morse, under the premise that Frederick was suspended for violation of school policy which occurred when the words that were displayed on his banner supported illegal drug use.
Rev. Yun offered advice and discussed spiritual matters with Ms. Borzoi; therefore, Rev. Yun was acting in her professional capacity as a senior pastor at BMCC.
Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles
In A. S. Abell Co. v. Sweeney, 274 Md. 715 (1975), the Court of Appeals quoted Professor Borchard in
Should Eisenberg’s case fall under Title VII and NYHRL? Is Eisenberg an employee of Advance, or an independent contractor?
Chapter 2 Harvard Press Book (2006). Performance management: Measure and improve the effectiveness of your employees. (Chapter 2) Motivation: The Not-So-Secret Ingredient of High Performance. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Lynn, I., Hodge, Y. & Yemen G. (2007). Teamwork turmoil. University of Virginia Darden School Foundation. Beamish, P. & Jiang, R. & (2011). The Chinese fireworks industry. Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation. Kaplan, R.S. (2010). Leading change with strategy execution system. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Karkhardt, D. & Hanson, J. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the charts. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of team. Harvard Business Review. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive. 9 (1), 7-14 Download on class site Kramer, R.M. (2003). The harder they fall. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Montgomery, C.A. (2005). Newell Company: Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business School Press.