States courts

Federal Carrier Cases, Commerce Clearing House, Inc., Chicago, HI. Continuing series of volumes selectively reporting decisions of ICC and U.S. federal and state courts pertaining to motor carrier, water carrier, and domestic freight forwarder regulation. 

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. 

But there was no proof acceptable in a United States court. Just before Pearl Harbor, the Treasury Department used its emergency powers and at last cut off the millions of dollars from General Aniline sales which I.G. Chemie had been relaying to I.G. Farben. 

In 2002, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts joined a growing number of state courts that have recognized a responsibility of pharmacists to warn patients of possible side effects from prescribed medications. In the case of Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy (764 N.E.2d 814), that court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a patient who had not been warned of the risk of priapism by the pharmacist who dispensed trazodone to him. The facts of the case disclosed that the pharmacy provided a short list of warnings to the patient but priapism was not included on the list. The court ruled that when a patient can reasonably conclude that a list of side effects is a complete and comprehensive list, the pharmacy has undertaken a legal duty to provide complete warnings and information. 

If the relationships between the previous employer, who owns trade secrets, the departing employee, and his new employer degenerate to the position that court action appears imminent, that action may well be taken in a state court or a federal court applying state law, and a jury may make the decision. A jury sometimes gives specific answers to specific interrogatories but usually delivers a verdict on the evidence without explanation. It is difficult, therefore, to predict what a jury will hold. It is also difficult to reason from the verdict in one case to another. 

There are many conflicting opinions in state courts regarding suits against gun manufacturers. In Spitzer v. Sturm, Ruger Co. (2003) the New York Supreme Court rejected a similar public nuisance claim. The court noted that firearms were already heavily regulated and that legislatures were much more suited than courts to deal with the problems caused by guns. 

Chiang, Harriet, and Kevin Fagan. Gunmakers Can Be Sued by Victims. San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 1999, p. Al, A19. Reports that a California state court of appeals has, for the first time in U.S. legal history, ruled that a gun maker can be held liable for the criminal use of its products. The case arose ftom a 1993 mass shooting in a San Francisco office building. 

REVISED NOVEMBER 2, 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OE APPEALS EOR THE EIETH CIRCUIT... 

Empirical work about the liability system utilizes several famous data sets. The Insurance Service Office, a research arm of the insurance industry, randomly sampled product liability claims in 1976 and 1977, but the universe represents only claims. Viscusi (1986,1988,1989b) has extensively used these data. The Rand Corporation has assembled the results of all civil jury trials held in federal and superior state courts in Cook County, Illinois, and San Francisco, California, from 1959 through 1984 and issued a series of studies (Peterson 1986). 

State courts continue to hold insurance firms liable for environmental damages under general corporate liability policies even when policy language specifically denies pollution coverage (Quint 1994). 

The problem here, the Court found, is that the state court did not construe the law as requiring proof of actual use of narcotics on the part of the defendant. The jury had been instructed that it could convict if it simply found that the status of addict applied to tire defendant—that he had the chronic condition of being addicted to the use of narcotics. This meant that... 

The Supreme Court and state courts make important decisions every year that determine how the laws are interpreted. As with laws, legal decisions are organized using a system of citations. The general form is Partyl v. Party2 volume reporter [optional start page] (court, year). 

Here the parties are Brandenberg (the defendant who is appealing his case from a state court) and the state of Ohio. The case is in volume 395 of the U.S. Supreme Court Reports, beginning at page 44, and the case was decided in 1969. (For the Supreme Court, the name of the court is omitted.)... 

A state court decision can generally be identified because it includes the state s name. For example, in State v. Torrance, 473 S.E. 2d. 703,... 

Washlaw Web at http //www.washlaw.edu has a variety of courts (including state courts) and legal topics listed, making it a good jumping-off place for many forms of legal research. However, the actual accessibility of state court opinions (and the formats they are provided in) varies widely. 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER V. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS COOPERATIVE AND JEEEREY JONES, ON WRIT OE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OE APPEALS EOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [MAY 14, 2001]... 

A United States Court of Appeals rules that drug labels must include intended regular uses of the drug. 

A United States Court of Appeals upholds prior mlings that widespread commercial use does not constitute substantial evidence of drug safety or effectiveness. 

In 2000, California voters approved a ballot measure that allows state courts to sentence first- and secondtime drug use offenders to rehabilitative treatment rather than jail or prison. The measure, Proposition 36 (Prop. 36), also known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, took effect July 1, 2001. As of March 1, 2002, more than 15,000 individuals had been referred to treatment under Prop. 36. The law mandates probation and drug abuse treatment for offenders instead of jail time. Persons sentenced under Prop. 36 are required to spend up to a year in a state-approved treatment regimen. Treatment can include outpatient care, inpatient treatment at a halfway house, psychotherapy, and drug education and prevention classes. The law applies to persons convicted of possession of amyl nitrite without a prescription. 

The DEA has documented approximately 4,500 federal, state, and local law enforcement investigations involving the distribution or possession of Rohypnol within the United States since 1985. The cases are spread across 38 states. However, at least two-thirds of those cases are in Florida and Texas, according to testimony given before Congress in 1999 by Terrance Woodworth, Deputy Director of the DEA s Office of Diversional Control. Since 1994, at least nine people have been convicted of sexual assault in five state court cases in which there was evidence that Rohypnol was used to incapacitate the victim. The DEA is aware of 17 other sexual assault cases that took place between 1994 to 1998 in which there is evidence to suggest Rohypnol was used. 

In Wisconsin, a first-time conviction in a state court for possession of 2C-B can result in a sentence of up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 5,000. A person convicted of sale or possession for sale of 2C-B can get a prison sentence of up to 30 years and a fine of up to 1 million. If the sale is to a minor, sentencing can be doubled at the discretion of the court. In neighboring Illinois, possession of 2C-B is a Class 4 felony, and conviction brings a prison sentence of from one to three years and a fine of up to 25,000. Conviction in a South Dakota state court of possession or sale of a small amount of 2C-B carries a minimum sentence of a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000. Sale or distribution to a minor carries a minimum prison term of five years. 

In 2000, California voters approved a ballot measure that allows state courts to sentence first- and secondtime drug use offenders to rehabilitative treatment rather... 

An appeal may be taken by the applicant from an order of the Secretary refusing or withdrawing approval of an application under this section. Such appeal shall be taken by filing in the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such applicant resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of... 

How protected Action brought for trespass in state court Action brought for infringement in federal court... 

---