skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Did you mean OSHA work safety?

Your query +osha work safety returned 222 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 SG LOEWENDICK & SONS V. OSHC
1000 02-9532 -- TIERDAEL CONSTRUCTION CO. V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION -- 08/18/2003

Circuit Judge.

967 J.A.M. BUILDERS V. HERMAN (11/22/2000, NO. 99-11917)

(
967 J.A.M. BUILDERS V. HERMAN (11/22/2000, NO. 99-11917)

(
967 OPINION/ORDER
J.A.M. was a subcontractor at a construction site in Miami Beach. Where an ironworker was killed by electrocution. Arguing that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is not in accordance with the law. We review the Commission's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. They are deemed conclusive.
967 OPINION/ORDER
J.A.M. was a subcontractor at a construction site in Miami Beach. Where an ironworker was killed by electrocution. Arguing that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is not in accordance with the law. We review the Commission's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. They are deemed conclusive. 2 See 29 U.S.C. § 660(a).
923 OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter is before this court on a petition for review in which the petitioner. BTC is a New York State Corporation with its headquarters in Syracuse. BTC was the successful bidder. The demolition project was broken into three distinct phases: pre implosion demolition. The demand for stadium seats was greater than expected. The memorabilia sale was conducted with the items sold to be picked up by January 19. Although it was possible that employees unexpectedly would run into a pipe or structural steel that needed to be torch cut. Concluding that they were insufficient. These citations have been referred to as the
920 OPINION/ORDER
P.A. was on brief for appellants.

912 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. P.A. were on brief. That such negligence was actionable under applicable state law. Was stamping innersoles by means of a marker machine. Her hair was drawn into the vacuum created by the high speed rotation of a drive shaft that delivered power to an adjacent
846 AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146)

The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute (
846 AM. IRON AND STEEL INST. V. OSHA (8/3/1999, NO. 98-6146)

The separate challenges are brought by the American Iron and Steel Institute (
844 OPINION/ORDER
841 OPINION/ORDER
It is not disputed that hexavalent chromium. Which is widely used in various industries and which has been classified as a carcinogen. Can have a deleterious effect on worker health. OSHA agreed that there was clear evidence that exposure to hexavalent chromium at the consensus level can result in excess risk of lung cancer and other chromium related illnesses. Announced that it was initiating a rulemaking that it expected would conclude in 1995. This matter was before us once before. For we concluded that the facts did not yet
819 OPINION/ORDER
Scott argued the cause for petitioner.
816 OPINION/ORDER
Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard (
803 OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was Robert E. With him on the brief were Joseph M. I Staley is a corn refiner that produces corn starch. Is responsible for setting and enforcing work place health and safety standards. If the Secretary determines that an employer is not complying with a standard. She is autho rized to issue a citation and assess a penalty. 29 U.S.C. ss 658. OSHRC is responsible for
800 OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that Associated is not a
797 WKPLC HLTH SFTY CNCL V. DOL
789 DANIEL V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMM'N (6/26/2002, NO. 01-16462)

We conclude that the findings of the OSHRC are supported by substantial evidence and do not constitute an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

789 DANIEL V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMM'N (6/26/2002, NO. 01-16462)

We conclude that the findings of the OSHRC are supported by substantial evidence and do not constitute an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

784 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Edward H. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Specifically to protect maintenance workers in electric power generation plants from being injured or killed by the accidental activation of equipment while they are servicing it. A lock is a mechanical device that keeps the equipment from being energized until the lock is removed. A tag is a warning placed to caution others not to operate the device. After the maintenance is completed. The group servicing provision applies when
778 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Joseph M. Because the per instance penalties are unlawful. Inc. is a manufacturer of custom wire products and newspaper racks located in Shiner. An Administrative Law Judge found that 382 violations were willful and assessed an aggregate penalty of $257. Included among the unreported injuries were second and third degree burns. Hun dreds of lacerations all of which were only recorded on Kaspar Wire's first aid log. The Commission concluded that these were knowing and willful violations that reflected a
778 OPINION/ORDER
Argued the cause for respondent.
767 OPINION/ORDER
Lee were on brief. Were on brief. The three provisions are codified at 29 C.F.R. s 1926.757(a)(1)(iii). Its challenge to this provision is waived. Because they are authorized by section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. (Act) and they are supported by substantial evi dence. Each of the two challenged provisions requires that joists be field bolted temporarily during steel erection to protect employees working on and around the joists until the joists are welded permanently in place. [1] where steel joists are used and columns are not framed in at least two directions with solid web structur al steel members. For the installation of this joist: ... (iii) Hoisting cables shall not be released until the seat at each end of the steel joist is field bolted. Each end of the bottom chord is restrained by the column stabilizer plate. ... (8) Field bolted joists. (i) Except for steel joists that have been pre assembled into panels. It is true that the Act authorizes OSHA to regulate only the employer's conduct at the worksite.
762 AMER BRDG LASHCON V. DOL
762 OPINION/ORDER
756 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Joseph M. Because this determination is also sup ported by substantial evidence. I. The Occupational Safety and Health Act imposes a general duty on employers to keep workplaces
754 ANTHONY CRANE RENTAL V. REICH
754 UNITED STATES V. HANSEN (8/24/2001, NO. 99-11638)

Was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. Which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek. Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury
754 UNITED STATES V. HANSEN (8/24/2001, NO. 99-11638)

Was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. Which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek. Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury
754 OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the findings of the OSHRC are supported by substantial evidence and do not constitute an abuse of discretion. I. The relevant facts are reasonably straightforward. Fluor Daniel is an engineering and construction company with approximately 30. Fluor Daniel was responsible for the construction of a General Electric (
748 OPINION/ORDER
Appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that appellees' state law claims are not preempted by the Federal Safety Appliance Acts (FSAA). Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Background The essential background facts are undisputed. Were unloading bromine from a tractor trailer onto a railroad tank car that was parked on railroad tracks running through the premises of their employer. He found Cearley lying dead next to the tank car. 2 The FRSA was originally codified at 45 U.S.C. § 421 et seq. Congress recodified the FRSA at 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq. 2 There were no witnesses to the accident. It is assumed for purposes of these proceedings that Cearley died from injuries sustained from falling off a fixed platform atop the tank car. The tank car showed no signs that any railings were missing or damaged. The platform has a railing around it which is thirty inches tall. Primarily on the ground that the railing on the tank car platform was not high enough to provide adequate protection.
745 OPINION/ORDER
We AFFIRM the decision of the district court because ORC § 4113.52(A)(1)(a) is inapplicable in situations where the
743 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The retrofitted HUDDELL was towed to Simplex's facility at Newington. At which point three options were available for getting from the tank onto the 'tween deck floor: (1) holding onto a
740 OPINION/ORDER
Was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. Which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek. Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury
737 OPINION/ORDER
Should have heeded Henry David Thoreau's warning to
734 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Such contests are heard first by an ALJ. 2000) [hereinafter July 2000 ALJ Order] (noting that OSHA uses the DCI to target
726 OPINION/ORDER
Because we agree that there is no basis for liability under the facts of this case. Sustained serious injuries when he fell from the top of a mobile home on which he was working at a mobile home manufacturing plant in Georgia owned by Destiny Industries. Inspectors from OSHA issued a citation against both Destiny and Howard for the failure to provide adequate fall protection at the facility where Pate was injured. Was also awarded damages for loss of consortium related to her husband's injuries. 2 1 violations were to be abated within a month.2 While Destiny and Howard abated some of the hazards cited by OSHA. OSHA was required. The OSHA inspector involved in this case was unaware of these requirements. Pate's accident would have been prevented because the appropriate safety equipment would have been installed. The citations were issued on December 19. Congress's chief intent in drafting the FTCA was not
721 OPINION/ORDER
Allen & Snyder were on brief. Were on brief. Are without force. The jurisdictional question is new to this court. Citations issued in respect to alleged violations are adjudicated by the Commission. 2 See id. 659. The instrument by which an aggrieved party solicits the Commission's attention is called a petition for discretionary review (PDR). The ALJ's report becomes the final order of the Commission unless review is granted
713 CHAMBER CMERC US V. OSHA

With

him on the briefs were William J. Argued the cause for respondents.

With him on the brief were Joseph M. Issued a

710 OPINION/ORDER
Snyder LLP was on brief. Was on brief.
704 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were William J. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Issued a
702 OPINION/ORDER
699 ALABAMA POWER CO. V. OSHA

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Alabama Power Co. v. We find that OSHA provided adequate notice and opportunity for comment with regard to the apparel provision and that the inclusion of the apparel provision within the text of the Standard was supported by substantial evidence. The petition for review is DENIED.<p> I. 1989 notice contained a statement that OSHA was requesting comments on the desirability of adopting requirements regarding the types of clothing fabrics worn by electric utility workers due to the fact that certain fabrics are easily ignited and can cause severe burns. 54 Fed.Reg. 4990. OSHA requested comments on the costs and benefits of any suggested provisions regarding apparel. <i>Id.</i><p> Interested parties were given until May 1. In it OSHA noted that it was considering a prohibition of any clothing fabrics that would substantially increase the severity of an employee's injury from arcing electrical equipment. Eleven days of public hearings were held and the submission of post hearing briefs and comments were permitted until March 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-3065.opa.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. OSHA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alabama Power Co. v. We find that OSHA provided adequate notice and opportunity for comment with regard to the apparel provision and that the inclusion of the apparel provision within the text of the Standard was supported by substantial evidence. The petition for review is DENIED.<p> I. 1989 notice contained a statement that OSHA was requesting comments on the desirability of adopting requirements regarding the types of clothing fabrics worn by electric utility workers due to the fact that certain fabrics are easily ignited and can cause severe burns. 54 Fed.Reg. 4990. OSHA requested comments on the costs and benefits of any suggested provisions regarding apparel. <i>Id.</i><p> Interested parties were given until May 1. In it OSHA noted that it was considering a prohibition of any clothing fabrics that would substantially increase the severity of an employee's injury from arcing electrical equipment. Eleven days of public hearings were held and the submission of post hearing briefs and comments were permitted until March 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943065.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * apparel provision within the text of the Standard was supported by substantial evidence. The petition for review is EEI and IBEW presented OSHA with their versions of a draft standard providing for comprehensive regulation of the electric utility industry. 1989 notice contained a statement that OSHA was requesting comments on the desirability of adopting requirements regarding the types of clothing fabrics worn by electric utility workers due to the fact that certain fabrics are easily ignited and can cause severe burns. 54 Fed.Reg. 4990. Interested parties were given until May 1. On 54 Fed.Reg. 30401. prohibition increase of In it OSHA noted that it was considering a any clothing of fabrics that would injury substantially from arcing the severity an employee's electrical equipment. Requested additional comment on flammable fabrics. and the Id. at 30404. submission of Eleven days of public hearings were held post hearing briefs and comments were permitted until March 1. OSHA issued the final Standard. apparel provision provides in part: The employer shall ensure that each employee who is exposed to the hazards of flames or electric arcs does not wear clothing that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1208a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C13F9B7B3122D82888256CD1005BCA84/$file/0036097.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Granted defendants' motion for summary judgment after finding that most of the alleged retaliatory acts were not adverse employment actions because they did not constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/012367P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul Danny Jordan was injured when a piece of steel girder fell from a crane and struck him while he was working at a construction site in Norfolk. That the Court erred in determining that NUCOR was not acting as its own general contractor because it maintained possession of the premises and was substantially involved in overseeing the construction at the site. That the District Court failed to hold that the crane was an inherently dangerous instrument and that Carlisle. Was subject to liability. That the Court erred in holding that the crane horn was operational and sounded before the lift that culminated in Mr. Jordan was entitled to the presumption that he would have heeded a proper warning had one been given. That the Court erred in failing to infer that Carlisle failed to produce certain evidence under its control because that evidence would have been unfavorable to Carlisle. Jordan was an employee of Lexicon. Lexicon employees were fabricating deflector shields at the NUCOR site. The crane was being operated by Kenneth Spencer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/peck.html">PECK V. HORROCKS ENGINEERS, INC.<BR></A><BR> We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. <p>BACKGROUND<p> Zachery Peck was killed on July 28. Zachery was an employee of K &. Horrocks is an engineering firm. The pipeline was installed by pipe layers into a 5'4 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-9519.htm">98-9519 -- UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION -- 06/28/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> The parties have stipulated to certain facts. Universal is a general contractor engaged in the construction business. Universal's field manager and foreman were at the jobsite and in a position to observe the violations. It is not disputed that Zahner created the hazards and only Zahner employees were exposed to the hazards. <p> On October 16. Universal was cited for a serious violation based on the October 6 incidents and a $1. 500 penalty was imposed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1389a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vecchione were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Yohay was on the brief. Was also bound by contract to comply with the Company's lockout policy. All of the Company's machines were capable of being locked out. DCS employees were trained in the proper procedures. The Company could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2373.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Snyder LLP</SPAN> were on brief for petitioner.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2237.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondents. Will & Emery on brief for The American Consulting Engineers Council. Standard of Review Standard of Review We review the Commission's decision to determine whether its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Whether its legal conclusions are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1836.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Snyder LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Sturm Ruger's Pine Tree Castings Division is housed within one of the buildings at Sturm Ruger's Newport facility. Sturm Ruger again refused them entry and subsequently moved to quash the warrant in the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C537B09ED5C302EC882571FC00494F7C/$file/0474247.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The trench was ten to twelve feet deep and between three and four feet wide at the bottom. The trench was about thirteen feet wide at the top and more than forty feet long. It was the practice to do so from inside the trench. Were generally responsible for cleaning the pumps and did so as needed throughout any given workday without receiving specific instructions. As the two were exiting the trench. Palomar was severely injured. The second citation charged the Company with failing to ensure that no worker would have to travel more than 25 feet to reach a safe point of egress. Sergio Lopez and Rick Dzamba stated that they did not know that Adam Palomar and Jose Aguiniga were in the unshored trench when the wall collapsed. Which suggested they knew that the two men were working in the unshored trench. The ALJ determined that Lopez and Dzamba were not credible. He was not told of any rules or shown a safety manual. He testified that there was no safety meeting at the beginning of the workday on September 19. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/031438P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude the DOL's interpretation of the Standard is unreasonable. Advanta is responsible for detasseling1 and harvesting the crop. Detasseling is a critical part of the hybrid seed corn production process. A terrain exception exists to the one quarter mile walk requirement: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2257.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</U> were on brief. Were on brief. We vacate the citation.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60511.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. FACTS & PROCEEDINGS Insofar as the issues before us are concerned. The relevant background facts are undisputed. They are expressed in detail in the decision of the Review Commission. ANALYSIS Three citation items are the subject of the instant petitions. Charging Trinity with violating 29 C.F.R. § 1915.14(a)(1)(i).2 Trinity argues that (1) § 1915.14(a)(1)(i) is preempted by § 1915.53. Which Trinity contends is the more specific and therefore prevailing governing regulation. 2003). 2 1 Id. at *10 11. 2 apply to newly constructed barges that have never contained a hazardous or unknown cargo. We explained the governing standard of review: We are bound by the OSHRC's findings on questions of fact 3 Id. at *11 12. 29 U.S.C. § 651(b). Responsibilities for setting and enforcing workplace health and safety standards under the OSH Act are divided between the Secretary and the Review Commission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul23/03-60511.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. FACTS & PROCEEDINGS Insofar as the issues before us are concerned. The relevant background facts are undisputed. They are expressed in detail in the decision of the Review Commission. ANALYSIS Three citation items are the subject of the instant petitions. Charging Trinity with violating 29 C.F.R. § 1915.14(a)(1)(i).2 Trinity argues that (1) § 1915.14(a)(1)(i) is preempted by § 1915.53. Which Trinity contends is the more specific and therefore prevailing governing regulation. 2003). 2 1 Id. at *10 11. 2 apply to newly constructed barges that have never contained a hazardous or unknown cargo. We explained the governing standard of review: We are bound by the OSHRC's findings on questions of fact 3 Id. at *11 12. 29 U.S.C. § 651(b). Responsibilities for setting and enforcing workplace health and safety standards under the OSH Act are divided between the Secretary and the Review Commission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9512.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul15/03-60028-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Employees of Mason & Hanger Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/034146p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The December 16th response was submitted together with a brief to this Court. Have jurisdiction over the petition before us which the parties. Agree is appropriately recharacterized as a petition to review final agency action. Cir. 1987) (when a petition to compel rulemaking was pending and the agency denie d rulemaking. It was appropriate to treat the pending petition as a petition for review of the denial). We find that the Secretary's denial of the request for rulemaking proceedings on MWFs was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Will deny the petition for review. I. Background Metalworking fluids are used in a wide variety of industries as coolants and lubricants for metal machining. Who are employed at approximately 185. Are exposed to MWFs by means of skin contact or by breathing or otherwise ingesting particles from mists or aerosols. There is little doubt. It is not disputed here. That exposure to MWFs can have debilitating health effects. The nature and prevalence of health effects from MWF exposure is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a professional painter who was severely injured after falling from an elevated work platform. I. BACKGROUND Terry Minter was hired to work as a painter at a construction site in Tulsa. He was using a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1520p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> E & R argues that the Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/02-1379b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031638.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The safety relief valves are mechanical devices used to release pressure within pipes carrying potentially hazardous materials at the facility. There are approximately 650 safety relief valves at the Natrium. The Union discovered that PPG was sending some of these valves off site to be inspected and repaired by outside shops. PPG was authorized to contract out the testing and repair work for all </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-2037.htm">02-2037 -- MCDANIEL V. U.S. -- 12/09/2002<BR></A><BR> (Brazos) was awarded a three year contract for the work. The contract was modified to include replacement of the barrel shaped roof on Building 37506. <p> McDaniel. Was the superintendent on the contract. McDaniel was not using any safety equipment at the time of the fall. <p> Both Brazos and the Air Force were on notice prior to the fatal accident that Brazos was not using an adequate fall protection system on Building 37506. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5297a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Klimaski was on brief. Acting United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the appellees. The district court held that the DOL's decision not to sue was committed to the agency's discretion by law and thus not subject to judicial review pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. I. Wood was employed as a senior electrician by United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)1 at the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS).2 JACADS is a facility consisting of several chemical weapons incinerators located on the Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The facility is operated by UE&C pursuant to a U.S. The working conditions at the facility are probably as dangerous as any undertaken in the world. Wood was employed at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. Where he gained extensive experience in the field of chemical 1 UE&C is a subsidiary of Raytheon Industries. 2 On a motion to dismiss. The facts as alleged in the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences therefrom are drawn in the plaintiff's favor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9541.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the Commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence and that Mr. Slingluff is subject to OSHA's requirements. He and Ben Jaramillo were beginning the process of stuccoing a building while standing on a scaffolding when a compliance officer from the Department of Labor inspected the job site. Jaramillo stated that he was working for $8/hour and that he had been on the scaffolding for about an hour and one half at the time of the inspection. Slingluff that alleged three violations of scaffolding regulations that have been adopted by OSHA. Jaramillo was not his employee. The matter was referred to the Commission for adjudicatory resolution. Slingluff is engaged in the construction business. Slingluff was to pay Mr. Slingluff </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60255.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. (...continued) determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. The facts are simple and undisputed. NDAS is a small stucco contractor. Its employees were working on a stucco project at a Wal Mart store under construction. Was inspecting the Keller site just as two employees were working from the lower platform. Who was NDAS's field superintendent. Vasquez is responsible for inspecting job sites for safe scaffolding and disciplining employees for safety infractions. Which is extensive. Vasquez added that NDAS did not have a formal rule about the number of infractions necessary for termination. The ALJ vacated this citation for lack of evidence. 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0225n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there is substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the company failed to adequately communicate its safety rules to its employees and. Was not entitled to the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. Commissioner Complete General Construction Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/97-1440a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Were on the briefs for the State Petitioners in 97 1440 and 97 1441. Kaplan on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenor Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for Amicus Curiae Congressman Tom Bliley in 97 1441. With them on the briefs were David H. With him on the briefs was David S. With him on the briefs were Harold P. Edgar on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Orrin Hatch in 97 1440. Numerous petitions for review have been filed for each rule. That EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Recla mation Fund. We agree with petitioners that EPA's choice of PM10 as the indicator for coarse particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious. Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and PM are reason able. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1096a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971492.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the caption is amended to add </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1468a.html">NATL ENG & CONTR CO V. OSHC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0141n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Carrasco's complaint did not properly plead claims of retaliation for activities he engaged in that were protected under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. That Carrasco presented sufficient evidence to support a prima facie claim that his termination from NOAMTC was in violation of Title VII and the OCRA. Carrasco was also an active member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Page 3 of 14 NOAMTC service manager Bill Dyer instructed the management team to start writing reprimands for any work rule violation committed by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EDC3F65974C048088256E5A00707A82/$file/9935665.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fatally injured when a tree fell on him at a logging site on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. Even if a cause of action were stated. We hold that Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action 2916 under Montana law and that the discretionary function exception does not apply. Came to the Lone Bear logging site to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054406p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lindsey alleged that the pipe layer was defective in that it did not have a rollover protective structure. Even if preemption is at issue. He was operating a sideboom pipe laying tractor manufactured by Caterpillar. The tractors were traveling in reverse gear. Which was the lower of the two. The Caterpillar tractor was not equipped with a rollover protective structure. Which could have prevented Charles from being crushed. Opined that it was technologically and economically feasible for the Caterpillar pipe layer to have been equipped with a rollover protective structure. This opinion was based in part on the fact that Caterpillar had designed a rollover protective structure for the tractor model at issue. Was providing such structures on its sideboom pipe layers at the time Charles Lindsey's pipe layer was manufactured. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Area Director recognized that pipe layers are exempted from the requirement for rollover protective structures. Caterpillar moved for summary judgment on the product liability claim on the basis that Lindsey's cause of action for defective design was preempted by the Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1392.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonz lez & Rodr¡guez were on brief for petitioner. Assistant Counsel for Appellate Litigation were on brief for respondents. Puerto Rico is outside the enforcement jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D781319D2E56769888256A080061E0CC/$file/9935665.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fatally injured when a tree fell on him at a logging site on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. Even if a cause of action were stated. We hold that Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action 2916 under Montana law and that the discretionary function exception does not apply. Came to the Lone Bear logging site to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-2011.htm">99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 01/11/2002<BR></A><BR> Judge <strong>BRISCOE</strong> is filing a concurring opinion. Judge <strong>LUCERO</strong> is filing a concurring opinion by which he joins Parts I. These actions were challenged by the instant declaratory judgment and injunction suit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and Local Union No. 1385 of the Western Council of Industrial Workers (the Union) as an intervenor. The Board and the intervening Union brought this appeal from the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Pueblo. <p> <center>I</center> <p> The relevant facts are undisputed. San Juan Pueblo is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in New Mexico. 200 members live on tribal lands that are held in trust by the United States for the Pueblo. The Pueblo is governed by a tribal council. Which is vested with legislative authority over tribal lands. Is described in the District Court's opinion. <em>NLRB v. The ordinance in substance is a so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60238.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/952194P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After a fifteen year old employee's arm was amputated when he stuck his arm in a spinning industrial dryer. Arguing that: (1) there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that Valdak committed a willful violation of the Act. The extractor had a warning: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1060.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. It contends that the accident was not caused by the glove the worker was wearing. So the hand protection violation is not supported by substantial evidence. Even if the trip wire was not an adequate guard. The company contends it established affirmative defenses by showing there was no feasible alternative to the trip wire. That the accident was caused by unpreventable employee misconduct. Are offset. The Peck machine at Riverdale was fitted with a trip wire across the front of the machine. Which would stop the rotation of the rollers in response to pressure on the wire. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1918.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen & Snyder were on brief. Were on brief. We turn a deaf ear to these blandishments because close perscrutation of the record discloses that they are premature. This is no more than a run of the mine administrative subpoena enforcement proceeding which presents no legitimate opportunity to dwell on cosmic truths. Whom the area director believed might have an unusually high number of employees afflicted with multiple movement disorders. This exegesis is largely beside the point. The principal question before this court is much more mundane: did OSHA have the authority to issue the administrative subpoena? A A An administrative subpoena is not self executing and is therefore technically not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-1122a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Lawrence P. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Parties adversely affected by an occupational safety or health standard may file a petition for review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2190.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Boardman</SPAN> were on brief. Plaintiff Angel David Morales Vallellanes ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/95-2807.opa.html">REICH V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMM.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Reich v. Because we conclude that this case is not moot. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0070n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Belt's original complaint was untimely. Belt was promoted to Fire Engineering Assistant (Senior). Inspecting the sprinkler systems to ensure they were clear and undamaged. Belt was responsible for filing assessment and tracking reports ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/95-2807.opa.html">REICH V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMM.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Reich v. Because we conclude that this case is not moot. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/981631P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MDI's parent is a non profit corporation that employs disabled and other disadvantaged workers. MDI was formed in early 1994 to build a plant in Grand Rapids funded by a grant from a large local employer. MDI was left to find assembly. The Grand Rapids plant was in precarious financial condition. It was held on December 16. Union supporters Keith Hawkinson and Ricky Thayer were permanently laid off. Ten were active union supporters. By telling employees a raise was not feasible because of the Union's campaign. The ALJ found that these employment actions violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3)1 because they were motivated by a desire to retaliate against union supporters and to discourage further attempts to secure union representation. MDI argues these portions of the Board's order should not be enforced because they are not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. It is an unfair labor practice </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2287.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Grosso with whom O'Reilly & Grosso was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. I. NEA is an unincorporated association of contractors who perform structural steel and pre cast concrete erection. Of persons working in the steel erection industry. 29 C.F.R. 1926.750(b)(1)(ii) is a regulation specifically targeted at the steel erection industry. It requires safety nets or safety lines to be installed when employees are exposed to a potential fall exceeding two stories or 25 feet. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952779P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Salvador Hernandez was killed when he became caught in a loin saddle table that he was cleaning at the IBP. Hernandez was an employee of DCS. Which was in operation while it was being cleaned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James L. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Melanie Watson. Of 3counsel was Alicia Daniels Lewis. I. BACKGROUND The Adair appellants are former and current (1) General Schedule employees under the Classification Act of 1979 and (2) Wage Supervisor or Wage Grade employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FCI in Jesup. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) to review the trial court's decision and hence what we consider to be the crux of this case. Namely whether ETS is covered by the statutes at issue as interpreted in the regulations implemented by the Office of Personnel Management ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031514P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For wrongful termination of his at will employment. MEC's posttrial motion for a new trial was granted on damages issues. Only one utility lineman was initially sent to respond to service calls. Kohrt believed that two linemen were always necessary because of the inherent risk of injury when working on high voltage. A body belt with a two foot lanyard was one of two devices available for use by linemen. The other permissible device was called a body harness. Both were designed (1) to prevent them from falling out of an aerial bucket and (2) to protect them from injury by arresting their descent if they did fall out while doing their high work. Kohrt believed the body harness was the only safe method because. Who tried the case with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 2 1 one man crew policy and the body belt policy were related. If an accident were to occur. Kohrt was fired on December 7. Kohrt argues that he was fired because of his stance on one man crews and the body belt policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/023335p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. An application for attorney's fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 504 is timely if filed prior to the expiration of 30 days from the date the decision of the agency becomes final and unappealable. Our jurisdiction over an appeal from a final order by the Commission is provided by § 11 of the OSH Act. 29 U.S.C. § 660. 3 We have plenary review over the Commission's legal interpretation of the EAJA. Because the EAJA is a statute of general applicability and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is not charged with administering it. We are not required to afford much deference to OSHA's regulatory interpretations. Id. at 59 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-6194.htm">01-6194 -- SHERWOOD V. OKLAHOMA COUNTY -- 07/10/2002<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff alleges he was forced to supervise the painting even after Defendants were notified of the potential serious health hazards associated with the process and type of paint being used. Plaintiff alleges he suffered serious harm. <p> Plaintiff claims that Defendants are liable under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/97-1109a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Grant Crandall. With her on the brief was W. Were on the brief for intervenor National Mining Association. Because all parties agree that MSHA is currently working on two other rulemakings with greater significance for miners' health. Because the agency's response was not definite. Concentrations in excess of permissi ble exposure limits (PELs) set by the agency are forbidden. Those regulations have incorporat ed PELs established in 1972 by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. MSHA recognizes that those levels are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1919.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Hamilton</U> were on brief. Bowie</U> were on brief. Was brought against the company whose stack was involved. Its parent corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1109a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on </P> <P>the briefs was Grant Crandall.</P> <P> Robin A. With her on the brief was </P> <P>W. Were on the </P> <P>brief for intervenor National Mining Association.</P> <P> Before: Wald. Because all parties agree that </P> <P>MSHA is currently working on two other rulemakings with </P> <P>greater significance for miners' health. Because the agency's response was not definite. Concentrations in excess of permissi </P> <P>ble exposure limits (PELs) set by the agency are forbidden. </P> <P>Id.1 Since the early 1970s. Those regulations have incorporat </P> <P>ed PELs established in 1972 by the American Conference of </P> <P>Governmental Industrial Hygienists. MSHA recognizes </P> <P>that those levels are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/94-2258.htm">94-2258 -- U.S. V. AGRONICS INCORPORATED -- 01/22/1999<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032215p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether Petitioner George Harms Construction Company is entitled to relief under the excusable neglect standard of Fed. We will vacate the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's final order and remand for a hearing on the merits of the OSHA citations. The Secretary of Labor is charged with enforcement of the Act. Both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4017_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the Secretary is correct: the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and therefore the case must be remanded to the agency with instructions to affirm the citations. 2 I No. 04 4017 Gunite's foundry in Rockford makes brakes and wheels for heavy trucks. The castings are shaken from the molds. The amount of this dust is enormous. Breathing silica is dangerous for the foundry's workers. Gunite's foundry was built in the first half of the twentieth century. They too were ineffective. Even though they were still being used several years later when OSHA entered the picture. Another insurer measured the air four times between June 1996 and March No. 04 4017 3 1998 and found that foundry employees including those at the positions listed in the citations at issue before us were being exposed to levels of respirable silica in excess of OSHA's PEL. Gunite seems to have ignored that recommendation. Two reports from Kemper NATLSCO in 1997 indicated that employees still were not being required to wear the individual respiratory protection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5043.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.(2) Plaintiff Appellant Sherry Hamby was employed by Associated Centers for Therapy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1945-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the hearing loss he allegedly sustained while he was employed by the defendant in its rail yard. Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Was until his retirement in 2003. It modified the new locomotives' horns in response to complaints that they were too loud and too shrill. Concluding that Tufariello's FELA action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1945-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the hearing loss he allegedly sustained while he was employed by the defendant in its rail yard. Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Was until his retirement in 2003. It modified the new locomotives' horns in response to complaints that they were too loud and too shrill. Concluding that Tufariello's FELA action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE5NDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1945-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the hearing loss he allegedly sustained while he was employed by the defendant in its rail yard. Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by regulations promulgated under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Was until his retirement in 2003. It modified the new locomotives' horns in response to complaints that they were too loud and too shrill. Concluding that Tufariello's FELA action was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 03 1334 Decree explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM CC. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree until compliance was achieved. Section 802(b)(2) of the PLRA entitles the defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031615p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether Petitioner Avon Contractors. Inc. is entitled to relief under the excusable neglect standard of Fed. We will vacate the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's final order and remand for a hearing on the merits of the OSHA citations. The Secretary of Labor is charged with enforcement of the Act. Avon discovered it was missing mail and suspected its receptionist. Was responsible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062121np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge At issue before the Court is the decision of an Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1409.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> €whereÐ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946854.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there is no substantial record evidence to support the finding of a violation. Following a complaint that Niemand's employees were being exposed to excessive levels of talc. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/043428P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Royce Dale Young was injured while working as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0787n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Problem reports are part of the company's plant wide procedure for documenting issues including non compliance with safety regulations and ensuring that they are resolved. He also confessed that his lack of experience in the field had led to difficulty in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6854.opa.html">NIEMAND IND. V. REICH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Niemand Ind. v. Because there is no substantial record evidence to support the finding of a violation. Following a complaint that Niemand's employees were being exposed to excessive levels of talc. Niemand was charged with violating 29 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6854.opa.html">NIEMAND IND. V. REICH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Niemand Ind. v. Because there is no substantial record evidence to support the finding of a violation. Following a complaint that Niemand's employees were being exposed to excessive levels of talc. Niemand was charged with violating 29 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1848.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. We are of the opinion that the district court's ruling is not sustainable. She claimed that inspectors from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0348p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which denied her claim because it found that she was not an employee for the purposes of the whistleblower provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Because we agree that Petitioner was not an employee of Defendant Intervener Indiana Michigan Power Company (I & M). DOL Page 2 BACKGROUND Petitioner Demski was the president and sole shareholder of two different corporations. (The corporations are hereinafter referred to as ANR/Scope). The terms of the agreements expressly provided that ANR/Scope were not agents or employees of I & M. She did not have an I & M supervisor. She did have two offices at the Cook plant. Two other managers of ANR/Scope were responsible for overseeing the day to day management of the contracts. Without determining whether she was an employee. Dismissed Petitioner's claims against AEP and substituted I & M as a party because I & M was the legal holder of the licenses for the Cook plant. The ALJ also ruled that ANR/Scope were improperly listed as complainants because. The ALJ ruled that Petitioner was not a covered employee because she was not an employee as the common law defined the term.2 Additionally under Nationwide Mut. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952807.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that this case is not moot. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/01-1046a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Edward M. With him on the brief was Nathaniel I. Rabinowitz were on the brief for intervenor United Steel. Petitioners contend that MSHA did not have sufficient evidence that DPM presents a risk to miners' health. Petitioners also assert that MSHA unlawfully granted medical evaluation and transfer rights to workers who are required to wear respirators. That MSHA's final implementation timetable was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules. Diesel exhaust is comprised of both gasses and particulate matter. The agency determined that miners were exposed to very high levels of DPM. MSHA concluded that it was necessary to regulate DPM exposure to protect miners from these risks. The agency determined that there was no reliable way to measure DPM directly for compliance purposes. Total carbon was deemed to be a reliable surrogate because there was evidence in the record that TC makes up approximately 80 85% of DPM. That this is a consistent relationship. Those rules were not challenged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/993849.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a District Court or der denying a motion for summary judgment by the defendants in an action asserting a constitutional tort claim. Primarily on the ground that it had been waived because it was not asserted until summary judgment. I. Plaintiff Gabrielle Eddy was employed by the V irgin Islands Water and Power Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That contract was covered by a payment bond that ICP had issued on National's behalf. The district court also awarded prejudgment interest on this sum from the date that the contract was terminated. To identify the areas where asbestos was present and to inspect the buildings before demolition to ensure that all the asbestos had been removed. After asbestos was found lying openly in the buildings from which asbestos had supposedly been removed. To remove asbestos from some of the buildings that Lepi was supposed to work on. Asbestos removal on the Darst Webbe projects was completed by Spirco and another firm. The parties agree that if a judgment is entered against National. This figure is the sum of job costs and overhead ($565. Lepi also testified that his company was entitled to the lost profits that it would have received had the full contract price been paid: This amounted to $29. Lepi's owner further testified that his company was entitled to at least $63. The change orders and supplemental work show the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2083.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Were on brief. Thomas Dutkiewicz was fired by his employer. After he repeatedly complained he felt his supervisors were pressuring him to violate Department of Transportation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/991583P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Dakota is in the excavation business. Were replacing a water main in Fargo. Which was denied. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE2MDJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1602_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The modified sentence imposed on remand is affirmed in part. Facts and Procedural Background The factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in detail in this Court's prior decision. Thorn was the owner of A+ Environmental Services. 000 asbestos removal projects. 2 Asbestos removal is a highly regulated field. New York State and the federal government have enacted protective measures to safeguard workers. Thorn was charged with nine counts of violating the Clean Air Act. He was tried before a jury. Customer payments for the illegally performed work were used to expand the business and engage in similar projects that quickly proliferated. Which was extensive because they did not wear the 3 protective gear required by law. Thorn was sentenced to a total term of 65 months: 60 months each running concurrently on Counts 1 through 9. Reasoning that the violations in which Thorn engaged were outside the heartland of that guideline. No fine was imposed because the District Court found that Thorn was unable to pay one. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003064.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was settled on the eve of trial. We have isolated those that ar e germane to the three issues reaching us on appeal. We will reverse the District Court's judgment in two respects. Which is at the heart of this controversy. Allied offers in writing to per form such work on such terms which are equal to or better than the bid otherwise most acceptable to the U.S. That Allied is then able to meet U.S. No third party was told that Allied held the right to review and match their final bids. Allied was unable to compete with an offer that included debt forgiveness. Allied's Fraudulent Inducement Claim Allied next claims that it was fraudulently induced into accepting Section V of the Settlement Agreement. 2) That the dismantling specification will not include the provision for . . . any environmental remediation (including any remediation and/or removal of asbestos) by Allied. Work in and around the dust was far mor e difficult than anticipated because . . . [the sinter dust] impacted the way facilities were dropped. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3911_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terry Winters' hand was severed at the wrist while he was working at a food processing plant. The purchased production lines were disassembled. The valve was located at a junction of three tubes on one of the cake lines. The third tube connected to a storage area that was used when cake mix was not needed at the mixer. Air pressure was used to move the cake mix through the tubes and also to adjust the valve's position. There is no evidence in the record that Fru Con altered the design or structure of the tubes or diverter Pinnacle Foods Group. Inc. acquired Aurora during the pendency of the proceedings before the district court and was substituted as a defendant. Fru Con effectively transplanted the cake and frosting lines </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60670.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. 500 fine against RCEC for failing to place a warning tag on a disconnected power line to indicate that work was being performed on the line. It is undisputed that the regulation applied to RCEC. RCEC employee Ronnie Spencer failed to place a warning tag on a power line that was being repaired. The purpose of the warning tag is to prevent the line from being re energized and electrocuting anyone working on the line. Spencer himself was within five or six feet of the disconnected and untagged line. (2) its terms were not met. (4) the employer knew or could have known of the condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-9546.htm">03-9546 -- SAFEWAY INC. V. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION -- 09/07/2004<BR></A><BR> The citation was later amended to allege. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2282.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Winger with whom Kraft & Winger was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for the United States Department of Labor. Butterfield with whom Olafsen & Butterfield was on brief for intervenor. This is a petition to review an order of the United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/00-1029a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Paul J. Lashay was on the brief for amicus curiae National Elevator Industry. With him on the briefs were Joseph M. Which is subject to the accumulation of toxic or flammable contaminants or has an oxygen deficient atmo sphere. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1676.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCormack was on brief for appellant. With whom O'Connell and O'Connell was on brief for appellee. Once the press was equipped with the required quick change frames (not manufactured by Trueblood) and each frame was fitted with a die containing an injectable mold. After the ejection was complet ed. The console which housed the controls for the Trueblood press was located within arm's length of the press operator and had three settings. The press operator was required to use both hands to push two widely spaced buttons on the console. Which meant that the operator's hands could not be inserted into the injection or ejection areas while the press was in operation. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0811n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Edward Herlik is a former pilot for Continental Airlines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75ED5FF195B93D3F88256E5A00707C48/$file/0016181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The threshold question is whether the Tribe is immune from suit. We conclude that it is not. We next address whether the Tribe is subject to the ADEA in these circumstances. We 10714 conclude that it is not. Resolution of this issue is a pure question of law that is currently ripe for review and. Is best resolved at the subpoena enforcement stage. The Tribe does not have its own reservation but instead occupies land held in trust by the United States. Is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Was particularly concerned with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1888.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lockhart LLP</U> were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8945F2F04A0292988256AA7005B8CAA/$file/0016181.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The threshold question is whether the Tribe is immune from suit. We conclude that it is not. We next address whether the Tribe is subject to the ADEA in these circumstances. We 10714 conclude that it is not. Resolution of this issue is a pure question of law that is currently ripe for review and. Is best resolved at the subpoena enforcement stage. The Tribe does not have its own reservation but instead occupies land held in trust by the United States. Is a governmental arm of the Tribe. Was particularly concerned with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-2011a.htm">99-2011A -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SAN JUAN -- 09/26/2000<BR></A><BR> 2000 <p> The court's slip opinion is corrected as follows: <ol> <li> On page 5. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-2011.htm">99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 09/26/2000<BR></A><BR> </strong>District Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1873_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peter Cefalu was terminated from his position as a truck driver with Roadway Express. Alleging that he had been fired in retaliation for his support of his co worker in the grievance hearing and that this activity was protected under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/06-7037a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Thomas Lester. With them on the brief were Michael C. With him on the brief were Robert J. Attorney General at the 2 time the brief was filed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1030a.html">TASTY BAKING CO V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971414.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Cummings stated that the stewards were discharged for incompetence. That he was tired of this [expletive] that [he] and [his] dad were trying to pull on him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013968P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is thirty to forty feet long. The paper is then pushed onto a conveyor belt and moved to the top of the baler. Which is approximately six feet long and five feet wide. A bale is made and an OPS employee removes the bale with a forklift. Although Tracy was only trained to do the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/99-5146a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were James P. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Sr. and Jimmie Lee Furby were partners and owners of J&L Reno vation Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1030a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Leonard R. TBC alleges that part of the complaint filed by the NLRB's General Counsel was time barred. That the hearing conducted by the Board's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was procedurally flawed. That the Board's factual conclusions are unsupported. That the Board's prescribed remedy is improper. Ensures that the baked product is carried away on a conveyor belt. her position was safe and that she was the company's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0156p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Norfolk Southern Railway Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0558n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff Appellant's intentional tort claim against his employer. The primary focus of the parties' appellate briefs was the soundness of the district court's ruling on the intentional tort claim. Is subject matter jurisdiction. Which is lacking. Since the district court and this Court are without authority to consider the merits of the case. This matter remanded to the Michigan state court from which it was removed. Was severely injured while performing electrical maintenance.2 Valinski had been assigned to help with an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI0MDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2404-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is vacated. The Clerk is requested to modify the official caption to reflect that Willie Jacques. Jr. is no longer a party to this appeal. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DAVID B. Which is § 806 of the Sarbanes CTI has settled its dispute with Jacques. He is no longer a party to this appeal. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Oxley Act of 2002. 2003 was that he had raised concerns with management about CTI's financial reporting. The Secretary issued a preliminary order finding that Bechtel's expression of concern is activity protected by § 1514A and ordering reinstatement. The power of the inferior federal courts is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3250667D76213B6D88256B26005C554B/$file/0030086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of violating criminal provisions of the Clean Air Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-1497a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Betty D. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Wisconsin. Patberg were on the brief for amicus curiae Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Govern ments. Carter and Deborah Ann Hottel were on the brief of amici curiae South Carolina Chamber of Commerce. With them on the brief were Lois J. With him on the brief were Elliot Spitzer. With her on the brief was Bruce J. David Hawkins and Raissa Griffin were on the brief for intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council. Meade were on the brief for industry intervenors. Wegman was on the brief for intervenor the Government of Canada. Such plans are then submitted to EPA for approval. Even after a SIP is approved. The statutory hook for EPA's action was a 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act which requires that SIPs contain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D62E2730158C8A9888256E5A00707D91/$file/0030086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of violating criminal provisions of the Clean Air Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR> A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR> A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-6135.htm">98-6135 -- WOOLARD V. JLG INDUSTRIES INC. -- 04/25/2000<BR></A><BR> </strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972510P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Mark Vandelune was seriously injured in a grain dust explosion while working at the Consolidated Cooperative Grain Elevator ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051491P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reverse the punitive damages award. 1 The period after Dr was dropped in the 1950s. Canny's responsibilities included driving routes and making deliveries when his route drivers were unavailable. Canny was diagnosed with Stargardt's Disease. I just really wanted­I was just worried sick. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042098np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005) OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in a wrongful death action. Rotshteyn was crushed to death by a machine called a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9570.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a whistleblower action brought by Adrienne Anderson (Anderson) against Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro) pursuant to various environmental statutes which prohibit discrimination against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-2133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. * Of the District of Maine. Does this criminal sanction apply when the imminent danger is not to people at the publicly owned treatment works. Facts The defendant John Borowski was the President and owner of Borjohn Optical Technology. When a mirror was improperly plated. Because the pollutants were ultimately discharged into a publicly owned treatment works. Borjohn was subject to the EPA's pretreatment regulations. Enormous health concerns are associated with exposure to nitric acid and nickel in the amounts involved here. Repeated employee exposure to the chemicals was unavoidable. Borjohn employees were told to bail out the harmful solutions by hand using a plastic bucket or a portable pump. Once a tank was nearly empty it was tipped over the edge of the sink and a scoop or small cup was used to scoop out any remaining solution. The employees were required to scrape the sides and bottom of nickel baths to extricate a layer of nickel byproduct called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967889.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6566B768B9F1E5E9882570CA00000E81/$file/0335924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-1033.htm">99-1033 -- HIDALGO V. FAGEN INC. -- 03/20/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Fagen on the claims that it was strictly liable for injuries caused by the conveyor. Requiring him to prove that the parts in question were defective when they left KWS's control. Hidalgo contends that a new trial is warranted because there was jury tampering. Was sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding a design defect in the screw conveyor system supplied by KWS. Impermissibly requiring him to demonstrate that the product was defective when it left KWS's control. <p> We review summary judgment rulings de novo. <u>See</u> <u>Southwestern Bell Wireless. Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0F39ED14034DE8788256D3B0073B827/$file/0135254.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were made pursuant to an allegedly discriminatory policy that remained in effect during the limitations period. Are or were employees of the United States Postal Service at the Gateway facility in Eugene. Its regulations.1 Although the parties dispute whether the policy is a flexible one which can take into account an employee's particular medical needs. Is as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/022114P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a sophisticated user of the silica sand that allegedly caused his injuries and thus that Martin Marietta Corporation2 (Lockheed Martin) had no duty to warn Deere of the risks posed by excessive exposure to silica sand. Workers exposed to respirable silica dust are at risk of contracting the lung disease silicosis. Nor was he responsible for making molds or cores with the sand. He concedes that he was never exposed to silica in excess of the permissible exposure limit established by The Honorable Michael J. We will refer to the appellee as Lockheed Martin. 22 1 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). It was Deere's policy not to provide respiratory protection to workers who were not exposed to silica concentrations exceeding the OSHA limit. The NIOSH recommendation is not binding on employers. We affirm only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Section 388 provides: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-1127a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Thomas H. With him on the brief were Joseph M. The citation alleges that Wal Mart had placed a portable conveyor rail system where it could have impeded employees from reaching an emergency exit. Which was used for receiving and storing goods. Were three truck bay doors that opened to an outside loading area. Nearby in the sidewall was an emergency exit. Because three of the four aisles were blocked at one end by stacked boxes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0985n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In 1998 Blackann was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0154n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that the Labor Cabinet was a nominal party that did not divest the district court of diversity jurisdiction. Maiden argues that the district court erred in denying its remand motion because his declaratory judgment action is equitable in nature and that the Labor Cabinet is not a nominal party. A limited partnership whose partners are Delaware citizens. Was an at will employee of NAS at the Carroll County plant and was discharged on or about August 29. Maiden alleges that his discharge was in retaliation for charges he made to the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection about the workplace health at and safety practices of NAS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032293np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. We include only such factual and procedural events as are necessary to our decision. Kaclik claims she was exposed to hazardous chemicals from painting being done in the building housing SSPC's offices. Appellant was unable to work because of this respiratory condition. Sowers also informed Kaclik that her performance evaluations would be postponed and that she could face immediate termination if she were absent again during the 3 month period following her return to work. 2 On March 1. She was again made ill at work on March 15. Claiming that all she smelled was overcooked food in the office microwave. Kaclik's employment was terminated on March 20. The EEOC dismissed her charge of discrimination because she had failed to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC and because her charge was not timely filed. SSPC filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3 This Motion was granted by the District Court and Kaclik now appeals the dismissal of her claims pursuant to the ADA and the FLSA and her related state tort actions for wrongful discharge and personal injury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="363"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/053100P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 jurisdiction over Carlson's claims because they were not completely preempted. The terms of his employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the local Teamsters Union and Arrowhead. There are also detailed provisions governing seniority. Although he asked them to have the trucks inspected. Who suggested that the trucks could be serviced in the winter when they were not in use. CPR told him that many more repairs were needed. In August Carlson noticed more serious structural problems with the truck and told Jim and Gerry that if the truck were not 2 repaired. Jim responded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-6213.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-6213.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514279.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BSRR is a common carrier by rail that holds itself out to the public for hire. Fairfield's trainmen and acting tower supervisors are the Willard appealed the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment. While this appeal was pending. All other Fairfield supervisors are also BSRR employees. To two vendors of Fairfield Works whose facilities are located on U.S. Is a party to those contracts. Fairfield maintains a separate account which is used for funding its payroll and payments to vendors. The employees are eligible to 3 receive Alabama state unemployment benefits rather than benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Willard filed a Rule 56(f) motion to reopen discovery because he learned that the Federal Railroad Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1372a.html">UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES GROUP, ET AL. V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With </p> <p>him on the briefs were Christopher L. With him on the briefs was </p> <p>Lois J. PCBs are outstand </p> <p>ing insulators and do not burn easily characteristics that </p> <p>make them useful in transformers. PCBs are also carcinogenic and toxic. These dangers are compounded by the remarkable </p> <p>stability of PCB compounds. Which bioaccumulate in fatty </p> <p>tissue and are readily absorbed through the skin and respira </p> <p>tion. We are told that by January 1. Which were cleaned to a surface concen </p> <p>tration of 10 micrograms of PCBs per 100 square centimeters </p> <p>(". The ques </p> <p>tion whether PCB contaminated surfaces that did not meet </p> <p>the cleanup or decontamination standards could be used was </p> <p>the subject of extensive public comment and inquiry by EPA. </p> <p>See 63 Fed. </p> <p> </p> <p>1 The PCB Mega Rule states that regulatory provisions applying </p> <p>to PCBs at concentrations ò 50 ppm also apply to surfaces contami </p> <p>nated with PCBs at surface concentrations ò 10 æg/100 cm2. 40 </p> <p>C.F.R. s 761.1(b)(3).</p> <p>2 There are certain differences between this decontamination </p> <p>provision and the Spill Policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The specific claim is that he was dismissed in retaliation for raising complaints about the air quality at the employer's facility in Ohio. Common law claims of wrongful discharge in violation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991681.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lincoln was injured while loading Reksten's ship. Lincoln was employed by Stevens Shipping and Terminal Company (Stevens) as a longshoreman. Stevens is a stevedore and was hired to load the GREEN TUNDRA. The charter party agreement included provisions that Reksten would provide a ship that had decks capable of holding up to five tons and that was fit in every way for the loading of frozen food packed in cartons. The stevedore is required to lower pallets full of boxes of frozen chicken with a crane through the cargo hatches into the cargo holds. Lincoln was working on deck B.1 The floor of deck B consists of wooden deck boards bolted to supporting steel I beams. The deck boards in deck B are approximately ten inches wide and two to three inches thick. There is an approximately one and a half inch space between each of the boards that allows refrigerated air to circulate between decks B and C. There is no other barrier between decks B and C. Inspected the holds to ensure they were safe and ready for loading. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042743np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INDUSTRIAL TRUCK DIVISION and/or CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY and/or any and all entities which were involved in the manufacture and/or design of the manufacture and/or design of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/971902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Federal Torts Claims Act case based on negligent inspection of a grain warehouse is before us for the second time. We ruled that Appley Brothers' claim was based on the U.S.D.A.'s breach of a mandatory duty. Therefore jurisdiction of the suit was not barred by the discretionary function exception to the F.T.C.A. Again arguing that the suit was barred by the discretionary function exception. That the mandatory duty on which we based our ruling in Appley Brothers I was not applicable. The government argues the court erred in concluding that the discretionary function The appellees are farmers. We will refer to them collectively as Appley Brothers. 2 1 exception did not apply and in determining that U.S.D.A. owed Appley Brothers a duty of care based on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042994np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A grant of summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party has established that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1372a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Christopher L. With him on the briefs was Lois J. PCBs are outstand ing insulators and do not burn easily characteristics that make them useful in transformers. PCBs are also carcinogenic and toxic. These dangers are compounded by the remarkable stability of PCB compounds. Which bioaccumulate in fatty tissue and are readily absorbed through the skin and respira tion. We are told that by January 1. Which were cleaned to a surface concen tration of 10 micrograms of PCBs per 100 square centimeters ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="349"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972502P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bryan Robertson was using a Black & Decker heavy duty power sander/grinder on a concrete bridge in Mountain View. The jury found that the accident was proximately caused by defendants' conduct in manufacturing and selling the grinding wheel in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition. The issues are (1) whether the district court erred in admitting expert testimony that defendants' product warnings were inadequate. Robertson had worked on bridges for over five years and was familiar with the Black & Decker grinder. Norton grinding wheels were purchased separately from the grinder and bore a warning label stating: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-6091.htm">97-6091 -- INGRAM V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 2021 -- 08/04/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0970p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Philadelphia defendants have not contested the need for substantial and meaningful improvements. They entered into two consent decrees and stipulated revisions thereto in which they agreed to make massive improvements and agreed to have the district court supervise the steps they planned to implement those improvements. It is also not contested that Philadelphia did not meet the deadlines for some of the obligations it undertook in the consent decrees and stipulations. The district court entered the series of orders which are the subject of these appeals.[fn1] Before us in this opinion is the City of Philadelphia's appeal from the order of October 5. These appeals were consolidated for argument with three related appeals. The appeal from the injunction entered by the district court governing the occupancy and conditions of confinement of the City's newly constructed prison facility denominated the Alternative and Special Detention Central Unit (No. 93 2034) was remanded to the district court because the issues raised by the City on appeal had not been raised by it in the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982442.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the company failed adequately to warn of the saw's dangers and that the saw was defective. The warnings were not required to spell out all the consequences of improper use. Nor was the saw defective Hood altered and used the tool in violation of Ryobi's clear warnings. The saw was fully assembled at the time of purchase. USE OF SAW WITHOUT THIS GUARD WILL RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 * This case was originally argued on October 20. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. Before the opinions were filed. Judges Cowen and Greenberg were selected at random to replace Judges Becker and Nygaard. 3 Phillip J. The resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions. 4 Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. Are barred by the ministerial exception insofar as they implicate a church's right to select its ministers under the Free Exercise Clause. They are not precluded by the exception. We will affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. We will remand her breach of contract claim for further consideration by the District Court. Gannon's motion to dismiss was framed in the alternative. Although we conclude that it is most properly construed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We note that the standard is the same when considering a facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1) or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0361n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1229p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. We set forth the facts as the jury could have found them in support of its verdict. SEPTA would have to pay substantial penalties. If the actual cost was 90% or less of that estimate. Pierce was responsible for monitoring those costs. John Doe is a SEPTA employee. Doe was HIV positive. Retrovir is a prescription drug used solely to treat HIV. If he or anyone else reviewed employee names in association with the drugs the employees were taking. He was never informed that this change might alter his confidentiality status. These reports were part of the contract between Rite Aid and SEPTA. This report listed employees who were filling prescriptions at a cost of $100 or more per employee in the past month. It was immediately apparent to Pierce that the reports would reveal employees' medications. Pierce stated that her purpose in reviewing the reports with Aufschauer was several fold. Some employees would purchase prescription drugs under the SEPTA health plan in order to give them to an ill friend or relative who was not covered by SEPTA's benefit package. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1599p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The claim of personal injury based on the plaintiff's fall on the path satisfies the jurisdictional facet of the Act and the judgment dismissing the complaint will be reversed. Was an employee of the Martin Marietta Company. Which was performing work for the Navy at the land base of the Underwater Tracking Range located on St. Plaintiff was walking from the upper portion of the facility to the lower sector to deliver material to an office trailer. 2 She and a co employee took the unpaved path that led directly to the trailer. The path was approximately fifteen to twenty feet in length and dropped downward at an angle of approximately fifty four degrees. There was no lighting in the area. Her complaint alleged that the government was negligent in failing to provide a stairway with handrails and for neglecting to provide sufficient lighting at the scene. Concluding that the government was protected by sovereign immunity because the conduct alleged came within the discretionary function exception to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-1298b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031314R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Respecting the denial of rehearing en banc: The points raised by my colleague in dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc are. Dissenting) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0095p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to address the validity of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1415p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiff is John Serbin. As the sun was rising on December 28. Struggled to move a stuck piece of equipment — known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3204.html">POETT V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Martha B. Reviewing Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Stephanie Conley</u>. 1995 settlement agreement as untimely because the Administrative Judge ( AJ ) held the petition was not filed within a reasonable time after he learned of the alleged breach.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Poett v. Is not supported by substantial evidence.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Accordingly. The dismissal was error.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We therefore reverse the decision of the Board dismissing the petition and remand for further proceedings. </p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. Tab stops:.5in'><span style='mso tab count:1'>            </span>The following facts are undisputed:</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The settlement agreement did not specify a time limit for filing a petition for enforcement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Board dismissed the appeal as moot after the settlement agreement was executed and entered into the appeal record.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span></p> <p class=MsoBlockText style='margin:0in. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="297"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5304a.html">TECHNIARTS ENG V. USA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="297"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-9521.htm">01-9521 -- HASAN V. U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR -- 04/26/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In 1999. Hasan applied for a position with respondent Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation as a civil/structural engineer.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="297"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-9521a.htm">01-9521A -- HASAN V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR -- 04/26/2002<BR></A><BR> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2087.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-9525.htm">01-9525 -- PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 02/05/2003<BR></A><BR> We deny the Company's petition for review and grant the Board's cross application for enforcement.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C6EC39A8729D908E88256CB0000D4B35/$file/0215576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that jurisdiction was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982212.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That Defendant Appellee Potomac Party Cruises ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTYyNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-6248-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-1392a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lynn E. Bryant Rogers were on the brief for amici Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations in support of petitioner and reversal of the NLRB's judgment. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Connecticut. The Casino is about an hour's drive from Los Angeles. Of the casino's patrons are nonmembers who come from outside the reservation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-2189.htm">98-2189 -- YBARRA V. AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> We conclude there is a factual dispute regarding the adequacy of Amoco's warnings and reverse. <p> Amoco operates a carbon dioxide recovery plant near Sundown. Selexol is a chemical solvent used in the heat exchangers to maximize carbon dioxide recovery. Were part of a crew sent to the plant to do the testing with air pressure. Selexol was blown from the tubes. The court concluded that the claim was governed by the principles applicable to the respective responsibilities of an owner or occupier of land and an independent contractor employed to do work on the premises. An adequate warning to or full knowledge by the independent contractor of the dangers should and will be held to discharge the landowner's alternative duty to warn the employees. <p> Appellant's App. at 142. Thus was relieved from the further burden of warning plaintiffs directly. <p> Plaintiffs raise three arguments on appeal. Which they claim is Hydroblast's normal procedure. They contend that because an Amoco employee at the plant assured the Hydroblast crew before they began the testing that there was nothing in the tubes that could hurt them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972278.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Lescs filed suit in federal district court seeking compensation for her alleged injuries that resulted from exposure to a pesticide that was applied to her residence. The grant of summary judgment was based primarily on the district court's interpretation of 7 U.S.C.A. § 136v(b) (West Supp. 1998). Dursban is subject to the registration requirements of 7 U.S.C.A. § 136a (West Supp. 1998). Because the odor was so strong. The person with whom she spoke told her that the fumes were not dangerous. . . . was okay to go into homes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garde</SPAN> were on brief for appellants. Fitch</SPAN> were on brief for appellees. Kenney</SPAN> were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for appellee United States.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/92091E6B79A3DE61882571EE00791FE5/$file/0435983.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After he was placed on unpaid leave. We have jurisdiction over Leon's appeal and IDX's cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND Leon was hired by IDX in 2001. Claiming there were irregularities in the financing and reporting of the federally funded project. One letter specifically warned that Leon should </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-1015.htm">98-1015 -- PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO V. GATES RUBBER COMPANY -- 04/26/1999<BR></A><BR> Finding PSCO's cleanup was not consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). PSCO contends the court erred in failing to recognize that the state of Colorado's extensive involvement in its cleanup of the site was tantamount to compliance with the NCP. Barter was located just northeast of the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Bayaud Avenue in Denver. Was comprised of five parcels of land: 100 South Santa Fe Drive (Lot A). The ERM study was followed by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-3340.opa.html">LENZ V. WINBURN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lenz v. Facts<p> <p> Donald and Shirley Lenz (the elder Lenzes or the Lenzes) have a son named Kurt.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-3340.opa.html">LENZ V. WINBURN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lenz v. Facts<p> <p> Donald and Shirley Lenz (the elder Lenzes or the Lenzes) have a son named Kurt.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-9546.htm">99-9546 -- QWEST CORP. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION -- 07/31/2001<BR></A><BR> We do not decide the underlying issue of whether the funding is in fact sufficient. We conclude that the FCC has not supported why the funding is sufficient. Several technical aspects of the model have been challenged. We affirm the Tenth Order. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts that precipitated this case are not in dispute. Federal is the subrogee of Norvest L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <!-- End of real page content --> <!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer --> <P></P> <!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer --> <!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) --> <div id="footer"> <div class="footerNav"> <div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know --> <ul> <li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li> <li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li> <li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">© copyright</a></li> </ul> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ridiculous div --> </div><!-- close footerNav --> </div><!-- close footer --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) --> <br class="clear" /> </div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) --> <!-- end of included footer --> </BODY> </HTML> <!-- end of HTML --> <!-- code from here on down --> <!-- input arguments are: a query (optional) --> <!-- to begin with... This init block sets up and runs the query. --> <!-- select correct options based on scope -->