Court procedure enforcement

NEPAs unique requirement for preparation of EISs has had a dramatic influence on federal agency decision-making, as numerous court rulings enforced strict compliance with the EA procedures for major programs and projects. 

From a procedural standpoint, unfavorable patent decisions by USPTO examiners (e.g., rejected patent claims/applications) can be appealed to the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board). If the outcome at the Board is unfavorable to the applicant then the applicant may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Unfavorable decisions from the CAFC may be further appealed by petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.6 While patent appeals from the Board to the CACF may be made as a matter of right, appeals from the CAFC to the Supreme Court are not. Due to the Supreme Court s broad jurisdiction and very limited capacity to hear cases, only a very small percent of cases that are appealed (approximately 1%) are heard (so good luck ).7 Patent litigation on the other hand involves the enforcement of patents that have already... 

This Instruction establishes enforcement policies and procedures for OSH A s Severe Violator Enforcanent Program (SVEP), which concentrates resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by committing willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations. Enforcement actions for severe violator cases include mandatory follow-up inspections, iuCTcased company/ corporate awareness of OSHA enforcement, corporate-wide agreanents, where appropriate, enhanced settlement provisions, and federal court enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act. In addition, this Instruction provides for nationwide referral procedures, which includes OSHA s State Plan States. This Instruction replaces OSHA s Enhanced Enforcanent Program (EEP). 

The ]1970] act did not specify any abatement procedure in the event that a stationary source in one State did emit air pollutants which adversely affected the air quality control efforts of another State. As a result, no interstate enforcement actions have taken place, resulting in serious inequities among several States, where one State may have more stringent implementation plan requirements than another State. For example, an implementation plan for the State of Ohio was not even proposed until 1976. It has now been challenged in court and has not yet been effectively implemented. As a result, there are no enforceable control requirements applicable to most of the significant major... 

Improvement and prohibition notices are additional new enforcement procedures which can produce results without resorting to the courts. 

Qearly, no two people assess risk in the same way, let alone attempt to quantify it. To comply with the Regulations, organisations need some form of assessment procedure that will be acceptable, in a court in particular. Furthermore, the system for measuring and evaluating risk should be acceptable to aU parties concerned - employers, employees, enforcement agencies and, perhaps, insurers. 

This hears cases arising from breaches of employment law where employee complains against a decision of the employer in situations covered by the legislation. It also hears appeals against Improvement and Prohibition Notices issued by an enforcing officer. The tribunal is a civil court because the matters it considers relate to a difference of opinion between the employer and the employee, or the employer and the individual enforcing officer, over the interpretation of the law and not to a breach of the law. The procedure in taking a complaint to an Industrial Tribunal is as follows ... 

---