Court of Appeal

EPA has 45 days to review each permit and to object to permits that violate the CAAA. If EPA fails to object to a permit that violates the Act or the implementation plan, any person may petition EPA to object within 60 days following EPA s 45-day review period, and EPA must grant or deny the permit within 60 days. Judicial review of EPA s decision on a citizen s petition can occur in the federal court of appeals. The public is guaranteed the right to inspect and review all permit applicahons and documents. There are provisions for three kinds of permit revisions administrative amendment, minor permit modification, and significant modification. 

An obvious solution would be to undervalue the work done, in order to avoid a claim from the client. The case of Lubenham Fidelities and Investment Co v. South Pembrokeshire District Council (1986) took care of any tendency to undervalue. In that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that the contractor might sue the architect in tort for any damages suffered by him because of the negligent valuation. 

The Court of Appeals for the USA Federal Circuit issued (1992) a decision that could strengthen the legal position that so-called pure software could be patented (Arrhythmia Research Technology vs. Corazonix Corp. 22 USPQ2d 103 of CAFC march 12,1992). 

In July 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the challenged portions of the rule. When it made its decision, the Court invited any of the parties to request either that the current standards remain intact or that U.S. EPA be allowed time to publish interim standards. Acting on this initiative, U.S. EPA and the other parties jointly asked the Court for additional time to develop interim standards, and the Court granted this request. On February 13, 2002, U.S. EPA published these interim standards that temporarily replace the vacated... 

U.S. EPA promulgated MACT standards for most HWCs on September 30, 1999. These emission standards created a technology-based national cap for HAP emission from the combustion of hazardous waste in these devices. A number of parties, representing both industrial and environmental communities, requested judicial review of this rule, and challenged its emission standards and several implementation provisions. On July 24,2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the emission standards however, it allowed EPA to promulgate interim standards that were in place since February 13, 2002. U.S. EPA issued the new Final Rule and standards on April 20, 2004. Today s standards30 31 shown in Tables 23.5 and 23.6 result from the above judiciary and regulatory actions. 

Murder is a crime in every country in the world, but it s no crime in the world-at-large because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals never said so. Ask Senator Taft. He never took the trouble to call it murder before anyway, so now he says How can you call it murder after the war is over The charges are very badly drafted, Joe. We should have charged excusable larceny and justified, premeditated killing. That s the kind of theory they ll be happy with."... 

Q. Did you know that the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in its decision of 22 September 1947, stated "On the witness stand, Howard, testifying on the Hague conferences, was in the opinion of this court not a credible witness." Did you know that ... 

OSHA requires employers of workers who are occupationally exposed to -hexane to institute engineering controls and work practices to reduce and maintain employee exposure at or below permissible exposure limits (PELs). The employer must use controls and practices, if feasible, to reduce exposure to or below an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 500 ppm (1,800 mg/m3) (OSHA 1974). The PEL for -hexane was to have been lowered to 50 ppm in 1989 however, a U S. Court of Appeals decision overturned a number of PELs promulgated in 1989, including that for -hexane. The PEL in force prior to this decision (500 ppm) is currently in effect. 

Code of Federal Regulations Supreme Court Decisions U.S. Code Circuit Courts of Appeal... 

My root teacher once said, In Qabalah, God is the only authority, all else is advice. We do not escape the consequences of our actions because some authority—living, dead, or fictitious—tells us to do something. I was only obeying orders is not recognized as a mitigating circumstance in the universe s Court of Appeals ... 

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for disulfoton does not exist. A U.S. Court of Appeals decision rescinded the 1989 PELs promulgated by OSHA (OSHA 1989), which included a PEL for disulfoton. Only PELs in place prior to the 1989 are now allowed Disulfoton had no PEL prior to 1989 therefore, it currently has no PEL. 

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan dissented with an opinion. Mr. Justice Marshall concurred with an opinion. Basically the decision reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that the Ohio trade secret law is not preempted by the federal patent law. Much of the reasoning and comments are of present interest. In part the decision reads (footnotes omitted) ... 

We granted certiorari to resolve a question on which there is a conflict in Courts of Appeals whether state trade secret protection is pre-empted by operation of the federal patent law. In the instant case the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was pre-emption. The... 

Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have reached the opposite conclusion. 

Harshaw sued in the U. S. District Court under the Ohio trade secret laws and was granted a permanent injunction against disclosure or use of 20 of the 40 claimed trade secrets until such time as the trade secrets had been released to the public or obtained from authorized sources. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed because ... 

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Ohio s law of trade secrets is not preempted by the patent laws of the United States, and further held (footnotes omitted) ... 

Court action was instigated by the industry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit( ). Meanwhile, AFL-CIO also entered suit against the Department of Labor in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, claiming that the final rule was too lax( ). All court actions eventually were consolidated in one case in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (10). 

U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Clr. No. 78-1979 ATMI vs Dr. Eula Bingham, Peltition filed June 19, 1978. 

There is some question as to which court s decision is sufficient to aetivate the court decision trigger of the 180-day exclusivity. Two courts of appeal have held, " and the FDA has issued guidanee, that any court s decision on whether the... 

One court of appeals has held that a dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for lack of a case or controversy is a court decision of non-infringement sufficient to trigger the 180-day exclusivity. We believe that the court s reasoning is persuasive and should be adopted. 

The Court of Appeals determined that the dismissal for lack of case or controversy was, in fact, a court decision, because the brand-name company indicated that the second generic applicant s ANDA did not infringe the relevant patent. As a result, the dismissal activated the court decision trigger. Such a rule eliminates the potential for a bottleneck created by a first generic applicant that does not exercise its commercial marketing rights. 

---