Search

The article focuses on the court case American Tort Reform Association v. OSHA, 2013. It discusses whether federal regulatory programs preempt state tort law. It is reported that the case is related to the Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards that are "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide for safe or healthful places of employment."

The article focuses on the court cases Agape Church, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 2013, and Daimler Trucks North America, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. It discusses how these D.C. Circuit decisions illustrate the importance of context in determining whether a final rule is a "logical outgrowth" of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The article discusses a legal case American Petroleum Institute v. Environment Protection Agency (EPA), wherein the district court castigated the effort of American Petroleum to produce one type of biofuel. It refers to regulations enshrined in renewable fuel standard (RFS) as per which EPA should make sure of the availability of renewable fuels in transportation fuels by 2022. The court affirmed the judgment of EPA for the reduced projection of production of one category of biofuel.

The article reports that the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S. supported the review by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas of state regulatory scheme against abstention challenge. The Court explained that in the case, Burford v. Sun Oil Co., federal courts may abstain from review of state regulatory program as necessary, asserting both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. It also noted that abstention was appropriate in light of the policy outlined by state law.

The article focuses on the District court case Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc. In the case buyers sued their real estate agent for violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibition on payments of fees in exchange for referrals. It mentions that the case was based on the business relationship between the title company and the realtor, they shared common ownership.

The article focuses on the court cases Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, 2014 WL 519224. In the case, the D.C. Circuit rejected an argument for Chevron deference and affirmed a district court order striking down an IRS rule that would have regulated tax-return preparers as "representatives." The court referened to the original 1884 statute, which referred to "agents, attorneys, or other persons representing claimants."

The article focuses on the court cases Verizon v. FCC, 2014 WL 113946 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 121 (2000). In the first case, the court ruled that agencies must be very careful to address prior agency decisions that may be relevant to their current action. In the second case, the Supreme Court had rejected an FDA interpretation of its statutory authority based in part on prior FDA statements inconsistent with its latest interpretation

The article presents information on the fault-finding by the U.S. district court with respect to the rulemaking efforts of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). It refers to a court case North Carolina Growers' Association Inc. v United Farm Workers wherein farm workers stated that 2009 action did not correspond to rulemaking enumerated in provision mandated by Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that the agency did not corroborate to good cause exception.