• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 69-83 of 1,134 results

Reply of petitioner Allstates Refractory - Proof of Service

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Reply of petitioner Allstates Refractory, Proof of Service (U.S. May. 10, 2024)
Supreme Court of the United States
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Allstates Refractory - Certificate of Word Count

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Reply of petitioner Allstates Refractory, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. May. 10, 2024)
Supreme Court of the Anited States
Petitioner, Respondents.
As required by Supreme Court Rule 29.5, I hereby certify that the Reply to Brief in Opposition in Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su, No. 23-819, complies with the word limitations, as it contains 2,971 words, excluding the words exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
eandcorrect.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing ist Date: May 10, 2024
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 00108045504 ORDER granting motion to extend time to file brief and appendix filed by Appellant James Harper

Document Harper v. Werfel, et al, 23-1565, No. 00108045504 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2023)
Motion to Extend Time to File BriefGranted
Case: 23-1565 Document: 00118045504 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2023 Entry ID: 6587918 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
DANIEL I. WERFEL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service;
Entered: August 29, 2023 Pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 27.0(d)
Upon consideration of motion, it is ordered that the time for Appellant James Harper to file a brief and appendix be enlarged to and including October 13, 2023.
By the Court: Maria R. Hamilton, Clerk
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondents Julie A Su Acting - Main Document

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief of respondents Julie A Su Acting, Main Document (U.S. May. 1, 2024)
The court of appeals correctly rejected that contention, which seeks to invalidate a statutory provi- sion that was enacted more than 50 years ago and has been the basis for the issuance of numerous safety standards that have greatly reduced occupational inju- ries and deaths over that time.
In Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (Benzene), a plurality of this Court determined that “ ‘safe’ is not the equivalent of ‘risk-free’ ” and that the Secretary may is- sue a permanent safety standard only if she makes a threshold finding that workers face “a significant risk of harm.” Id. at 642 (opinion of Stevens, J.).
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), but in those cases, the Court held that Congress had acted unconstitutionally by failing to pre- scribe an intelligible principle to guide the Executive’s exercise of discretion.
As petitioner concedes (Pet. 23), “the question here does not involve a circuit split.” The three courts of appeals that have considered the question—the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits—have all determined that the statutory provision empowering the Secretary to promulgate permanent safety standards complies with the nondelegation doctrine.
Finally, petitioner errs in suggesting (Pet. 23) that “holding this delegation unconstitutional will reinvigor- ate the nondelegation doctrine without causing severe practical consequences.” Before the Act’s enactment, “workplace safety was addressed in a patchwork man- ner by federal and state regulations and, to a degree, employers’ voluntary efforts.” Kiewit Power Construc- tors Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 959 F.3d 381, 385 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citing S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondents Julie A Su Acting - Proof of Service

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Brief of respondents Julie A Su Acting, Proof of Service (U.S. May. 1, 2024)
No. 23-819 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALLSTATES REFRACTORY CONTRACTORS, LLC, PETITIONER v. JULIE A SU, ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 76 OPINION and JUDGMENT filed : AFFIRMED

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Julie A. Su, et al, 22-3772, No. 76 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2023)
Motion for Judgment
Further, while the “‘degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies according to the scope of the power congressionally conferred,’” we nonetheless “apply one universal intelligible-principle test regardless of the type of statute at ...
Page 17 Of all “principle[s] in our Constitution,” none is “more sacred than . . . that which separates the legislative, executive and judicial powers.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 116 (1926) (quoting 1 Annals of Congress 581 (1791) ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 00804813285 MANDATE ISSUED

Document State of Nebraska, et al v. Joseph Biden, Jr., et al, 22-3179, No. 00804813285 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as the President of the United States of America, et al. Appellees
Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis (4:22-cv-01040-HEA)
In accordance with the judgment of August 8, 2023, and pursuant to the provisions of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(a), the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above- styled matter.
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Appellate Case: 22-3179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2023 Entry ID: 5303928
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Starbucks - Certificate of Word Count

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...
In the Supreme Court of the United States
I, Lisa S. Blatt, counsel for petitioner Starbucks Corporation and a member of the Bar of this Court, certify that the Reply Brief of Petitioner in the above-captioned case contains 5,998 words, excluding the parts of the brief that are exempted by Rule 33.1(d).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Starbucks - Proof of Service

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...
In the Supreme Court of the United States
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioner Starbucks - Main Document

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. The Sixth Circuit’s Test Defies the Traditional Factors ............................................................................ 3 The Sixth Circuit Applied None of the Four Factors ...
The Sixth Circuit Applied None of the Four Factors 1.
None of this requires deference.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. Order-07-27-23

Document Metal Conversion Technologies, LLC v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 22-14140 (11th Cir. Jul. 27, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion to extend the time to file a - Main Document

Document Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC, Petitioner v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et al., 23-819, Motion to extend the time to file a, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 29, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Labor and - Certificate of Word Count

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Remedies Scholars - Main Document

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of Remedies Scholars - Proof of Service

Document Starbucks Corporation, Petitioner v. M. Kathleen McKinney, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, 23-367...

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... >>