Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This case was considered on the record from the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission and upon the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons explained in the acco

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice. [¶ 1.] The narrow issue on appeal is whether the Attorney General’s ballot explanation of proposed Constitutional Amendment K complies with the requirements of SDCL 12-13-9. The trial court upheld the ballot explanation and denied South Dakota State Federation of Labor AFL-CIO’s (AFL-CIO) request for a writ of certiorari. We affirm.

NIES, Circuit Judge. Donna Kelley, on behalf of herself and other former employees of the American Thread Company, appeals from the decision of the Court of International Trade, 638 F.Supp. 1344 (CIT 1986), which affirmed the Secretary of Labor’s denial of a petition for trade adjustment assistance under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974,19 U.S.C. § 2272 (1982 & Supp. I

ACCEPTED 03-13-00790-CV 4062436 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TOWNES, District Judge: In a Memorandum and Order dated January 24, 2013, and entered January 28, 2013 (the “Prior M & 0”), this Court declined to “so order” a Stipulation of Dismissal which would have dismissed this action with prejudice; directed that the stipulation be stricken; and directed that the parties submit additional documentation if they wished to dismiss this

COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge. Appellants, trustees of the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund (fund), appeal from an order of the district court which granted the appellee’s (government’s) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants instituted this action seeking a declaration as to the meaning and application of certain sections of the Employee

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-397V Filed: December 28, 2022 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAYMOND MARKARIAN, * TO BE PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * Ruling on the Record;

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph E. Archer, Nancy J. Bonati, Christopher : C. Bosworth, Deborah A. Bosworth, Belita J. : Brown, Stephen C. Brown, Deborah A. : Cunningham, Paul V. Cunningham, Candace : DiMarco, Ross F. DiMarco Jr., Janeen Dupre, : Karen A. Farmerie, Wilson J. Farmerie, David A. : Fetchko, Mary Ellen Fetchko, Clifford J. Forrest, : Tracy L. Forrest, Gary D. Gadley, Annette

FAY, Circuit Judge: In 1989, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”),1 a division of the Department of Labor, issued its Air Contaminants Standard, a set of permissible exposure limits for 428 toxic substances. Air Contaminants Standard, 54 Fed.Reg. 2332 (1989) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1000). In these consolidated appeals, petitioners representing various affected industri

USCA11 Case: 16-16492 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 1 of 35 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16492 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01732-VMC-TBM NORIS BABB,

739 F.Supp. 28 (1990) Douglas L. COX, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 90-0340-GHR. United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 14, 1990. Douglas L. Cox, Oakdale, La., pro se. Thomas S. Rees, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., for defendant. ORDER REVERCOMB, District Judge. The plaintiff's c

965 F.2d 962 61 USLW 2042, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,229,15 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1729,1992 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 29,735 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIALORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner,Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Intervenors,v.OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT Of LABOR, Respondent,Texas Laundry and Drycleaning Association, Nationa

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-1898 _____________ DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Appellant _____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eas

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether purchasers were able to establish that a citric acid manufacturer conspired with competitors to fix prices and to allocate market share in violation of the federal antitrust laws. I Citric acid is a corn derivative with a wide variety of uses in the manufacture of food, soft drinks, detergents, and pharmaceuticals. Varni Brothers C

OPINION RADER, Judge. Plaintiffs, twenty individual employees of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Bureau), Department of the Treasury *604(Treasury), originally brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia through their union, the Bank Note Engravers Guild. Plaintiffs claimed that the Bureau unreasonably

781 F.Supp. 1400 (1991) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY and Nabisco Brands, Inc., Defendants. Civ. No. 83-51-D. United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, C.D. December 10, 1991. *1401 *1402 John W. Poole, Antitrust Div., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge. In this petition to review an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, we are asked to determine whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 1 permits affected employees or their representative to challenge

JUSTICE MORAN delivered the opinion of the court: In these consolidated cases, defendant, the Illinois Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Insurance (Department), appeals from two decisions of the appellate court. Plaintiff Sandra Garland filed a complaint in

MICHEL, Circuit Judge. Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) appeals the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) dated March 28, 1997. Loral Fairchild Corp., No. 45719, 1997 WL 157324 (ASBCA Mar. 28, 1997). The Board sustained-in-part and denied-in-part Lockheed’s appeal of the contracting officer’s (the “CO’s”) final decis