MSHA Update Panel Recent Developments in Mine Safety and Health Law
|
|
- Anastasia Blankenship
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 MSHA Update Panel Recent Developments in Mine Safety and Health Law American Bar Association Occupational Safety and Health Law Committee 2017 Midwinter Meeting March 9, 2017 Moderator: Kristin R.B. White, Jackson Kelly PLLC (Denver, CO) Panelists: Mark E. Heath, Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC (Charleston, WV) Art Traynor, United Mine Workers April Nelson, Associate Solicitor for Mine Safety and Health (Arlington, VA)
2 Developments in regulations and enforcement of the Mine Act Update on 105c interference cases Recent jurisdiction ruling Impact of S&S violation issues 110(c) penalties American Coal and settlements Workplace examinations in metal/nonmetal mines 2
3 Interference as a Cause of Action under 105c Secretary of Labor on behalf of McGary v. Marshall County Coal Co., 37 FMSHRC 2597 (ALJ Miller)(Nov. 2015) Secretary of Labor on behalf of Greathouse v. Monongalia County Coal., FMSHRC Docket No. WEVA D (ALJ Miller) (Dec. 2015)
4 Jurisdiction Maxxim v. MSHA, (6 th Cir. Feb. 13, 2017) This case is the first reversal of an MSHA attempt to expand jurisdiction to cover off site equipment repair shops. Maxxim has operated repair shops for many years. One shop was covered by OSHA in West Virginia. Upon moving to Sidney, Ky., to an abandoned mine site, District 6 MSHA asserted jurisdiction. An ALJ and the FMSHRC ruled MSHA had jurisdiction over the site, relying on a 2000 Commission decision, Jim Walter Resources, 22 FMSHRC 21.
5 Maxxim v. MSHA, (6 th Cir. Feb. 13, 2017) Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of Murray Energy and Foresight Energy, who had numerous shops that could have been subjected to MSHA jurisdiction. The 6 th Circuit found that off-site shops are not covered by MSHA jurisdiction. The Court specifically rejected both the Commission decision here and Jim Walter. The Sixth Circuit found no logic that a repair shop is covered by MSHA, but not manufacturers like Joy and Caterpillar. One Justice even commented the expansion appeared to be an attempt to use Chevron Deference as an inspector full employment act.
6 Maxxim v. MSHA, (6 th Cir. Feb. 13, 2017) Alpha, it is true, needs facilities like Maxxim s to repair equipment and manufacture new parts. But that reality does not transform the Sidney shop into a mine any more than it could have transformed the Jeffrey Company plant into a mine in the past or a Caterpillar plant into a mine in the future. Our court rejected a similar argument in the context of a road and bridge constructed by a mining company. Even though the road and bridge were the only means of getting the minerals from the surface mine to the loadout facility and even though they were used in the process, that did not make them mines under 802(h)(1)(C). Bush & Burchett, 117 F. 3d at 939. A similar conclusion applies here.
7 Maxxim v. MSHA, (6 th Cir. Feb. 13, 2017) This decision is controlling in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan. We believe it is likely to be followed in other Circuits and the new incoming administration. This decision also show why more Amicus Briefs should be filed on important issues at the Court of Appeals level.
8 Significant & Substantial S&S Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) This decision is important for two reasons one intended and one not so. This case arose out of MSHA s attempt to put the Knox Creek Mine, then owned by Massey Energy in A number of citations involved permissibility citations a MSHA requirement that electrical junction boxes have very tight clearances,.006 th of an inch, to prevent methane from igniting and traveling into the mine.
9 Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) At hearing, MSHA wanted Judge Barbour to reject the Mathies test for significant and substantial and instead presume there would be an ignition that spreads into the mine. Judge Barbour rejected that attempt and used the Mathies test. The ALJ found that inside the junction boxes there were no problems with the electrical connections and there was no likelihood that the boxes could ignite methane or create an explosion. The citations were determined to be non S&S.
10 Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) MSHA lost enough citations that the mine could not be placed on a pattern of violations. The Secretary still appealed the permissibility citations. The Commission reversed and found the permissibility citations were significant and substantial. The Commission also found a belt that was in the process of being cleaned up with a crew on the way to do the work was significant and substantial. The Fourth Circuit upheld the Commission decision, but made two important rulings on the standard of review by rejecting Chevron and how the significant and substantial test is to be administered.
11 Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) The Court determined that MSHA litigation positions are not entitled to Chevron deference, but instead are entitled to the lesser deference standard under Skidmore. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). While MSHA s interpretation was upheld here under Skidmore, this part of the decision will be important in future cases.
12 Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) The second part of Knox Creek is now being dealt with by our ALJs. The Fourth Circuit has determined at the primary focus on the Mathies test should be prong 2 of Mathies, not prong 3 that has been the focus of most cases. (2) a discrete safety hazard that is a measure of danger to safety contributed to by the violation; (3) a reasonable likelihood that the hazard contributed to will result in an injury.
13 Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) Prior to this decision, most litigation on significant and substantial focused on prong 3 and whether there was a likelihood of injury. The Fourth Circuit determined that under prong 3, you must assume the hazard will occur that hazard, if it occurred would result in serious injury. The Fourth Circuit believed likelihood should come into play under prong 2. This follows because, for a violation to contribute to a discrete safety hazard, it must be somewhat likely to result in harm. Knox Creek, pg. 26. The Seventh Circuit reached a similar decision in Peabody Midwest Mining v. FMSHRC, 762 F.3d 611 (7 th Cir. 2014).
14 Knox Creek Coal Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, (4 th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) To date, ALJs are beginning to apply these decisions. Judge Lewis and Judge McCarthy have issued decisions. Judge McCarthy followed both the Fourth Circuit and the old Mathies test in Sec. of Labor, MSHA v. Northshore Mining Company, LAKE M, et. al., (April 11, 2016) See also Newmont USA Limited v. Secretary of Labor, MSHA, WEST RM (April 18, 2016)(Judge Lewis)
15 110(c) Penalty Issues A significant issue continues to develop on MSHA late processing of Section 110(c) penalties against agents of the operator. MSHA has begun investigations after company cases are settled or even tried, well past the one year deadline in the regulations. Even when the investigations are timely started, MSHA has taken three or four years to make decisions on issuing 110(c) penalties. ALJ s typically have stayed the company case while the 110(c) process is completed. Now ALJs refuse to do so.
16 This means either the company has to defend itself without the testimony of key agents or the agent must submit to potential depositions and trial testimony before they know if MSHA will pursue a 110(c) case against them and have that testimony used against them. A few ALJ s are beginning to take action. ALJ Rae denied a Motion to Dismiss as the individual could not show prejudice by the delay. But she left open reconsideration at the end of discovery and also stated she would question any testimony not in the inspector notes due to the length of time. Sec. of Labor, MSHA v. Ralph W. Dushane, employed by CEMEX Construction Materials of Florida, LLC, SE M.
17 Even if Respondent cannot show actual prejudice, I find such a lengthy delay raises questions about the reliability of any testimony that is presented, including the testimony of the investigator. While Respondent is not entitled to dismissal at this time because he has not made a specific showing of actual prejudice, I will, however, entertain a renewed motion to dismiss before or at trial. In the event that Respondent, having had an opportunity to conduct full discovery, finds witnesses cannot be located or memories have indeed faded to the extent that he can demonstrate actual prejudice, dismissal may be warranted.
18 Path Forward??? This issue continues until ALJs or the Commission address the situation. Following a 2012 fatal, MSHA recently decided not pursue a 110(c) case over 4 ½ years after the accident. Perhaps the Commission should use the same standard being employed when Coal Companies miss the 30-day deadline to ask for a hearing when an assessment is received. The Commission has for many years denied reopenings to Companies that regularly miss the 30-day deadline to contest an assessment and the companies did not put in place a system to correct the problem.
19 Settlements before ALJs The American Coal Company, LAKE (Comm. 2016), on appeal Status of the Secretary s settlement authority under section 110(k) of the Mine Act. 19
20 WORKPLACE EXAMINATIONS 20
21 Evolution of the Requirements of a Workplace Examination Program Policy Letter July 22, 2015 Proposed Rule June 8, 2016 Final Rule January 23, 2017
22 New Rule on Workplace Examinations The final rule was made available for public inspection by MSHA on January 17, The final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2017.
23 New Rule on Workplace Examinations The final rule may become effective on May 23, This has been called into question by Trump administration memorandum.
24 WH Memo Regulatory Freeze On January 20, 2017, the first day of the new administration, the White House released a memorandum to all agencies entitled Regulatory Freeze Pending Review. Memo instructs all agencies to withdraw rules that had been submitted to the Federal Register but not yet published. How will this affect the January 23, 2017, publication in the Federal Register?
25 Status of Final Rule Limbo Rule has been pulled back for review, per MSHA source, despite having been published in the Federal Register. No notice has been published to temporarily postpone the rule s current effective date of May 23, 2017, by 60 days (per memo directive).
26 New Rule on Workplace Examinations SUMMARY: The final rule requires that a competent person designated by the operator examine each working place at least once each shift, before miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health; that operators notify miners in the affected areas of any conditions that may adversely affect their safety or health; that operators promptly initiate corrective action; and that a record be made of the examination.
27 Important Distinctions Between Current Rule and New Rule Current Rule Allows mine operators to perform the workplace examination anytime during the shift before corrective action is taken. New Rule Requires an examination of each working place before miners begin work in that place.
28 Important Distinctions Between Current Rule and New Rule Current Rule Contains no requirement for operators to notify miners of adverse working conditions. New Rule Requires mine operators to notify miners of adverse working conditions in their working places.
29 Important Distinctions Between Current Rule and New Rule Current Rule Does not address the contents of the examination record. New Rule Requires the examination record to include: The name of the person conducting the examination; Date of the examination; Location of all areas examined; A description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners; And, when necessary, be supplemented to include the date of corrective actions taken for adverse conditions.
30 Important Distinctions Between Current Rule and New Rule Current Rule Requires mine operators to make the record of examinations available for review by the Secretary or his authorized representative. New Rule Requires mine operators to make the examination record available for inspection by an authorized representative of the Secretary and miners representatives and provide a copy upon request.
31 Prompt Notification of Adverse Conditions How do mine operators promptly notify miners of adverse working conditions? Verbal notification Descriptive warning signage Prompt notification is one that occurs before miners are potentially exposed to the condition e.g., before miners begin work in the affected areas. ONLY those miners who would be affected by the adverse condition require notification.
32 When to Record the Examination When does the competent person have to make a record of the examination? A record of each examination must be made before the end of the shift for which the examination was completed.
33 A Timing Problem? The operator is held responsible for notifying any miner who would be affected by the adverse condition prior to that miner potentially being exposed. However, the competent person is not required to complete the actual record of the examination until the end of shift.
34 Signing the Examination Record Do competent persons have to sign the record of examination? No. MSHA does not require a signature, but does require that the record identify the competent person conducting the working place examination.
35 Checklists and Electronic Records Does the final rule allow mine operators to use a checklist for recording the working place examination? Yes. Checklists may be used to record examinations.
36 Checklists and Electronic Records Does the final rule allow mine operators to keep electronic records of examination? Yes. Examination records may be kept electronically, if: Electronically secured so they cannot be altered Available for inspection Provide an electronic or paper copy upon request
37 ANY QUESTIONS?
MSHA Document Requests During Investigations
MSHA Document Requests During Investigations Derek Baxter Division of Mine Safety and Health U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor Arlington, Virginia Mark E. Heath Spilman Thomas & Battle,
More informationMSHA Section 110(c) Investigations Agent of the Company Your Responsibilities & Liabilities
MSHA Section 110(c) Investigations Agent of the Company Your Responsibilities & Liabilities 33 rd Annual South Central Joint Mine Health & Safety Conference April 8, 2015 Dallas, Texas 1 Presenter Jason
More informationOSHA TO EPA: ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY REGULATORY PREDICTIONS UNDER A TRUMP PRESIDENCY
OSHA TO EPA: ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY REGULATORY PREDICTIONS UNDER A TRUMP PRESIDENCY Association of Corporate Counsel In-House Counsel Forum April 5, 2017 Kristin R.B. White Member Jackson Kelly PLLC kwhite@jacksonkelly.com
More informationENROLLED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR. Senate Bill No. 68. (Senators Tomblin, Mr. President, and Caruth,
Page 1 of 10 ENROLLED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR Senate Bill No. 68 (Senators Tomblin, Mr. President, and Caruth, By Request of the Executive) [Passed March 10, 2007; in effect ninety
More informationLegal Issues Arising from OSHA Inspections
Legal Issues Arising from OSHA Inspections ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law Occupational Safety and Health Committee 2017 Midwinter Meeting, Jupiter, Florida March 8-10, 2017 Moderator: Ken Kleinman,
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH: An Overview of Where We Have Been, Where We May Be Heading, and Executive Orders of Interest
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH: An Overview of Where We Have Been, Where We May Be Heading, and Executive Orders of Interest 2017 CSSGA Annual Conference By: Laura E. Beverage Jackson Kelly PLLC 1099 18 th
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
16-2055-ag Sec. of Labor v. Cranesville Aggregate Cos., Inc. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2016 (Argued: May 11, 2017 Decided: December 18, 2017) Docket No.
More informationUSCA Case # Document # Filed: 03/24/2017 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) )
USCA Case #17-1099 Document #1668154 Filed: 03/24/2017 Page 1 of 4 MAR 2 4 2017 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 74 Article 2A 1
Article 2A. Mine Safety and Health Act. 74-24.1. Short title and legislative purpose. (a) This Article shall be known as the Mine Safety and Health Act of North Carolina. (b) Legislative findings and purpose:
More informationMark E. Heath, Spilman, Thomas & Battle PLLC, Charleston, WV Art Traynor, United Mine Workers of America, Washington, DC
American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law Occupational Safety and Health Law Committee 2018 Midwinter Meeting Santa Monica, California February 27 March 2, 2018 Tuesday, February 27
More informationTable of Contents. Both petitioners and EPA are supported by numerous amici curiae (friends of the court).
Clean Power Plan Litigation Updates On October 23, 2015, multiple parties petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA s Clean Power Plan and to stay the rule pending judicial review. This
More informationMine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (Miner Act), USA
The ICFAI University From the SelectedWorks of Aparna Meduri January, 2007 Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (Miner Act), USA Aparna Meduri Available at: https://works.bepress.com/aparna_meduri/16/
More informationCoal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999
Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 Reprinted as in force on 14 December 2007 Reprint No. 2B This reprint is prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel Warning This reprint
More informationOSHA Delays Construction Silica Rule Until September 23, 2017 By: Michael Peelish, Esq.
1 P a g e ISSUE 3 APRIL 25, 2017 Copyright 2017 OSHA Delays Construction Silica Rule Until September 23, 2017 By: Michael Peelish, Esq. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration s (OSHA) final
More informationGeorge Harms Constr v. Secretary Labor
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-9-2004 George Harms Constr v. Secretary Labor Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 03-2215 Follow
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION WILLARD REED KELLY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:15-cv-1110 ) Judge Aleta A. Trauger MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, ) LLC;
More informationPDF Version. ELECTRICAL SAFETY ACT [REPEALED] published by Quickscribe Services Ltd.
PDF Version [Printer-friendly - ideal for printing entire document] ELECTRICAL SAFETY ACT [REPEALED] published by DISCLAIMER: These documents are provided for private study or research purposes only. Every
More informationCase 5:14-cv JPB Document Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 10711
Case 5:14-cv-00039-JPB Document 265-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 10711 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #13-1108 Document #1670157 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,
More informationIC Chapter 1.1. Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Act (IOSHA)
IC 22-8-1.1 Chapter 1.1. Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Act (IOSHA) IC 22-8-1.1-1 Definitions Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, unless otherwise provided: "Board" means the board of safety review
More informationDRAFT TECHNICAL GUIDANCE: BLASTER S LICENSE SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION PROCEDURE
BUREAU OF MINING AND RECLAMATION DOCUMENT NUMBER: 562-2402-501 TITLE: Blaster s License Suspension and Revocation Procedure EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2002 AUTHORITY: Administrative Code of 1929 (Section
More information105 CMR Indoor Air Quality in Indoor Ice Skating Rinks
105 CMR 675.000 Indoor Air Quality in Indoor Ice Skating Rinks 675.001 Purpose 675.002 Authority 675.003 Citation 675.004 Scope 675.005 Definitions 675.006 Air Sampling Requirements 675.007 Record Keeping
More informationCase: 7:10-cv ART Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/22/10 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 4396
Case: 7:10-cv-00132-ART Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/22/10 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 4396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE HILDA L. SOLIS, Secretary of Labor,
More informationRoger Williams University Hot Work Plan
Roger Williams University Hot Work Plan Roger Williams University Dept. Of Environmental Health and Safety One Old Ferry Road Bristol, RI 02809 Adopted: April 26, 2011(President s Cabinet) Roger Williams
More informationALABAMA SURFACE MINING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
ALABAMA SURFACE MINING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 880-X-5A SPECIAL RULES FOR HEARINGS AND APPEALS SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO SURFACE COAL MINING HEARINGS AND APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS 880-X-5A-.01
More informationRe: Request Criminal RICO Investigation Of Don Blankenship-CEO of Massey Energy and Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
PO BOX 9576 Washington, D.C. 20016 info@velvetrevolution.us April 14, 2010 Eric Holder United States Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 Re: Request Criminal RICO Investigation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT REPORT
Hernandez v. Swift Transportation Company, Inc. Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BRANDON HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
More informationSCHEDULES. In connection with the ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT. by and among SEMINOLE COAL RESOURCES, LLC, ERP COMPLIANT COKE, LLC AND ERP
EXECUTION VERSION SCHEDULES In connection with the ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT by and among SEMINOLE COAL RESOURCES, LLC, ERP COMPLIANT COKE, LLC AND ERP ENVIRONMENTAL FUND, INC., AS BUYER, WALTER ENERGY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: KKC MEMORANDUM ORDER
Case 3:05-cv-00018-KKC Document 96 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT FRANKFORT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 05-18-KKC AT ~ Q V LESLIE G Y cl 7b~FR CLERK u
More informationNew South Wales. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1983 No 20. Justices Legislation Amendment (Appeals) Act 1998 No 137
New South Wales OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1983 No 20 CURRENT AS AT 3 JULY 2000 COVER SHEET (ONLY) MODIFIED 24 AUGUST 2001 INCLUDES AMENDMENTS (SINCE REPRINT No 6 OF 20.1.1999) BY: Justices Legislation
More informationOSH-Related Cases Applying the Chevron Doctrine 2017 CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
OSH-Related Cases Applying the Chevron Doctrine Courts Role in Interpreting Admin. Rules S.Ct. and other fed. courts have started taking a dim view of judicial deference doctrines New appeal to Courts
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Fletcher v. Miller et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND KEVIN DWAYNE FLETCHER, Inmate Identification No. 341-134, Petitioner, v. RICHARD E. MILLER, Acting Warden of North Branch
More informationTRENCH PERMIT PETITION Lawrence, Massachusetts [Ord. Secs and 12.30
TRENCH PERMIT PETITION Lawrence, Massachusetts [Ord. Secs. 12.12 and 12.30 PERMIT NO: Date: I. Your petitioner (name of property owner) respectfully represents that public necessity and convenience requires
More informationSHORT PLAT VACATION APPLICATION INTAKE CHECKLIST
Skamania County Community Development Department Building/Fire Marshal Environmental Health Planning Skamania County Courthouse Annex Post Office Box 1009 Stevenson, Washington 98648 Phone: 509-427-3900
More informationORDINANCE NO. 906 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ATHENS MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 16 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
ORDINANCE NO. 906 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ATHENS MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 16 IN ITS ENTIRETY. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ATHENS, TENNESSEE, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 2 of
More informationCh. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES GENERAL PROVISIONS
Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES Sec. 41.1. Scope. 41.2. Construction and application. 41.3. Definitions. 41.4. Amendments to regulation.
More informationChapter 9. Welcome to Our World: MSHA Vulnerability to Suit Under Federal Tort Claims Act for Negligent Inspection
Chapter 9 CITE AS 34 Energy & Min. L. Inst. 9 (2013) Welcome to Our World: MSHA Vulnerability to Suit Under Federal Tort Claims Act for Negligent Inspection Gretchen M. Callas 1 Jackson Kelly PLLC Charleston,
More informationCHAPTER 5. FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
Ch. 5 FORMAL PROCEEDINGS 52 CHAPTER 5. FORMAL PROCEEDINGS Subch. Sec. A. PLEADINGS AND OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS... 5.1 B. HEARINGS... 5.201 C. INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW... 5.301 D. DISCOVERY... 5.321 E. EVIDENCE
More informationFederal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Description of document: Requested date: Released date: Posted date: Source of document: Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) September 2017 Substantive Case (management update) Report
More informationPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON CASE NO. 15-1433-E-P MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY and THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY Petition for Reconciliation of Surcharge and Regular Review of Vegetation
More informationJune 6,2018. Ingrid Ferrell Executive Secretary West Virginia PSC 201 Brooks Street Charleston, WV 25301
_I I x June 6,2018 Ingrid Ferrell Executive Secretary West Virginia PSC 201 Brooks Street Charleston, WV 25301 I Re: Intervention of Sierra Club in Case No. 18-503-E-ENEC Dear Ms. Ferrell, c Please find
More informationREGULATION OF THE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT OF WAUKEE, IOWA, PROVISIONS FOR SEWER RENTAL AND REGULATION CONNECTIONS WITH THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.
REGULATION OF THE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT OF WAUKEE, IOWA, PROVISIONS FOR SEWER RENTAL AND REGULATION CONNECTIONS WITH THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. 204.1 Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, COAL RIVER MOUNTAIN WATCH, WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY, and
More informationLOCAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTING AND/OR SUPERSEDING UNIFORM RULES OF LOUISIANA COURTS OF APPEAL
LOCAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTING AND/OR SUPERSEDING UNIFORM RULES OF LOUISIANA COURTS OF APPEAL Adopted October 1982 Including Amendments Last Revision: March 14, 2018 Table
More informationMEMO INFORMATION, MINERALS PROGRAM. DATE: October 2, 2001 Revised October 19, 2001, August 2, 2004, and January 12, 2006
MEMO INFORMATION, MINERALS PROGRAM TO: FROM: Whom It May Concern The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety DATE: October 2, 2001 Revised October 19, 2001, August 2, 2004, and January 12, 2006 RE:
More informationProvince of Alberta EXPROPRIATION ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter E-13. Current as of December 17, Office Consolidation
Province of Alberta EXPROPRIATION ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700, Park
More informationWork Health and Safety Act 2011 No 10
New South Wales Work Health and Safety Act 2011 No 10 Contents Part 1 Preliminary Page Division 1 Introduction 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 Division 2 Object 3 Object 2 Division 3 Interpretation Subdivision
More informationHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 An Act to reform the law relating to the health and safety of employees, and other people at work or affected by the work of other people BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament
More information"Environmental Policy & Law under the Trump Administration: Smooth Sailing or a Bumpy Ride?"
"Environmental Policy & Law under the Trump Administration: Smooth Sailing or a Bumpy Ride?" April 28, 2017 Elizabeth Hurst Law Offices of Elizabeth A. Hurst PLLC Copyright 2017 Elizabeth A. Hurst PLLC
More informationOCCUPATIONS CODE TITLE 12. PRACTICES AND TRADES RELATED TO WATER, HEALTH, AND SAFETY SUBTITLE B. PRACTICES RELATED TO HEALTH AND SAFETY
OCCUPATIONS CODE TITLE 12. PRACTICES AND TRADES RELATED TO WATER, HEALTH, AND SAFETY SUBTITLE B. PRACTICES RELATED TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 1958. MOLD ASSESSORS AND REMEDIATORS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL
More informationCase 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More information11.00 MANDATORY ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS GOVERNED BY ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULES
ARTICLE 11: MANDATORY ARBITRATION 11.00 MANDATORY ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS GOVERNED BY ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULES (a) The Mandatory Arbitration Program in the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial
More informationTITLE 37, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE 37, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER 1 PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUBCHAPTER A GENERAL PART 1 RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES Authority: 35 U.S.C. 6, unless otherwise
More informationWork Health and Safety Act 2011 No 10
New South Wales Work Health and Safety Act 2011 No 10 Status information Currency of version Current version for 1 January 2014 to date (generated 17 October 2014 at 13:12). Legislation on the NSW legislation
More informationCASE NO: FORECLOSURE SCHEDULING ORDER. 1. Any prior order referring this case to Senior Judge Sandra Taylor is hereby VACATED.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 16 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY CASE NO: Vs. Plaintiff Defendants / FORECLOSURE SCHEDULING ORDER THIS CASE having been reviewed by the
More informationOSHA Under the Trump Administration
OSHA Under the Trump Administration September 27, 2017 Eric J. Conn Chair of the OSHA Practice at Conn Maciel Carey LLP 2017 CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING WWW.CONNMACIEL.COM
More informationVirginia ''from conducting any elections subsequent to 2014 for the. Office of United States Representative until a new redistricting plan
Page et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections et al Doc. 137 DAWN PAGE, ^ al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division V. Civil Action No.
More informationNOTICE 1103 OF 2013 DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, 1996 (ACT NO 29 OF 1996)
STAATSKOERANT, 15 NOVEMBER 2013 No. 37027 3 GENERAL NOTICE NOTICE 1103 OF 2013 DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, 1996 (ACT NO 29 OF 1996) PUBLICATION OF AND INVITATION TO COMMENT
More informationInsider s Guide to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board
Insider s Guide to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board Philip L. Hinerman, Esq. 215.299.2066 phinerman@foxrothschild.com 2000 Market St. 20th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222 215.299.2000 Do
More information3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1
3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments 2008 - Page 1 1 L.A.R. 1.0 SCOPE AND TITLE OF RULES 2 1.1 Scope and Organization of Rules 3 The following Local Appellate Rules (L.A.R.) are adopted
More informationSupreme Court Holds that SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutionally Appointed
Supreme Court Holds that SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Unconstitutionally Appointed June 26, 2018 On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. SEC 1 that Securities and Exchange Commission
More informationRESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT
Province of Alberta RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT Statutes of Alberta, Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700,
More informationCHAPTER 13. Resolution of MSHA Disputes -- The Need for Change and Suggestions. for A More Productive Approach
CHAPTER 13 Resolution of MSHA Disputes -- The Need for Change and Suggestions for A More Productive Approach Mark N. Savit Jackson & Kelly Washington, D.C. and Michael F. Duffy Counsel Federal Mine Safety
More informationTHE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education Environmental Law 2017
1 THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Continuing Legal Education Environmental Law 2017 Cosponsored by the Environmental Law Institute February 9-10, 2017 Washington, D.C. Executive Orders on the Keystone and Dakota
More informationExamining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB Cases: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Examining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB
More informationHot Work Procedures. Competent means possessing knowledge, experience and training to perform a specific duty.
Hot Work Procedures Purpose This procedure will provide the knowledge and equipment required to minimize the identified workplace hazards associated with Hot Work. These procedures will provide: information
More informationCase: 5:06-cv KSF-REW Doc #: 3139 Filed: 07/18/08 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: <pageid>
Case: 5:06-cv-00316-KSF-REW Doc #: 3139 Filed: 07/18/08 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION (MASTER FILE) NO. 5:06-CV-316
More informationHot Work Program. SUNY Canton. Purpose
SUNY Canton Hot Work Program Purpose Hot Work is defined as welding, thermite welding, thermal spraying, installation of torch applied roof systems, cutting, soldering, brazing, grinding, thawing pipe
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,
USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED
More informationNo In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1341 Document: 27 Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., v. No. 14-1341 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs-Appellees, RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Nuclear Information and Resource ) Service, et al. ) ) v. ) No. 07-1212 ) United States Nuclear Regulatory ) Commission and United States ) of
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are
More informationARLINGTON COUNTY CODE. Chapter 55 UNDERGROUND UTILITY PROTECTION
Chapter 55 55-1. Short Title. 55-2. Authorization and Declaration of Policy. 55-3. Definitions. 55-4. Administration and Enforcement. 55-5. Responsibilities of the Contractor. 55-6. Responsibilities of
More informationEASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC. Plaintiff Philip Emiabata, proceeding pro se, filed this
Emiabata v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc. Doc. 54 EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-45 (WOB-CJS) PHILIP EMIABATA PLAINTIFF VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
More informationFederal Energy Law Update. David Gilles Godfrey & Kahn S.C. February 27, 2015
Federal Energy Law Update David Gilles Godfrey & Kahn S.C. February 27, 2015 1 Congressional Legislation Of the 21 bills proposed in the current (114 th ) Congress, only one (the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-30395 Document: 00513410330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT In Re: DEEPWATER HORIZON United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
More informationIn the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia
In the Magistrate Court of Kanawha County West Virginia Magistrate Court Case No. 13 M 3079-81 Circuit Court Appeal No. State of West Virginia - PLAINTIFF Police Officers Vernon and Yost Kanawha County
More informationLEXSEE. JAMES R. HAZELWOOD, PLAINTIFF v. PATTI WEBB et al., DEFENDANTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:06CV-P107-M
Page 1 LEXSEE EX. 4 JAMES R. HAZELWOOD, PLAINTIFF v. PATTI WEBB et al., DEFENDANTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:06CV-P107-M UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
More informationPrivileges Associated with Product Safety Teams
Privileges Associated with Product Safety Teams February 12, 2015 Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1308 Document #1573669 Filed: 09/17/2015 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. and WALTER COKE, INC.,
More informationMINE HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL (As amended by the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy (National Assembly)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill) (MINISTER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Case: 08-2370 Document: 102 Date Filed: 04/14/2011 Page: 1 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY; ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; NATIONAL PARKS
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0005 LINDA ALESSI JOSEPH ALESSI JR AND TOMMIE SINAGRA VERSUS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0005 LINDA ALESSI JOSEPH ALESSI JR AND TOMMIE SINAGRA VERSUS BARRIERE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC Al Nit Judgment Rendered
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationCase 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:16-cv-00315-NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9 JOHN R. GREEN Acting United States Attorney NICHOLAS VASSALLO (WY Bar #5-2443 Assistant United States Attorney P.O. Box 668 Cheyenne, WY 82003-0668
More informationAir and Radiation Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode: 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460
December 21, 2012 MEMBER COMPANIES Clean Harbors Environmental Services Dow Chemical U.S.A. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Eastman Chemical Company INVISTA S.àr.l. 3M Ross Incineration Services, Inc. Veolia
More informationIN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-475 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. DAVID F. BANDIMERE, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JENNIFER GAGERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 2, 2014 v No. 317732 Oakland Circuit Court DR. IAN MCLAREN, M.D., and NORTHLAND LC No. 2012-125804-NH ANESTHESIA
More informationPRETRIAL ORDER (JURY TRIALS)
DISTRICT COURT CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 BANNOCK ST. DENVER, CO 80202 DATE FILED: June 23, 2015 8:18 AM CASE NUMBER: 2015CV30918 Plaintiff(s): CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, v. Defendant(s):
More informationADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN. Effective June 1, 2016 Amended June 19, 2017
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN Effective June 1, 2016 Amended June 19, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1 Scope... 3 Rule 2 Construction of
More informationStanding Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals
Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart
More informationPermits: A Kentucky Perspective. Bill Bissett, President Kentucky Coal Association SGA / SSEB August 19, 2011
Permits: A Kentucky Perspective Bill Bissett, President Kentucky Coal Association SGA / SSEB August 19, 2011 1 2 Kentucky Coal 107 million tons / 3 rd in the nation. 18,000+ Coal Miners. In Kentucky, approx.
More informationCook v. Snyder: A Veteran's Right to An Additional Hearing Following A Remand and the Development of Additional Evidence
Richmond Public Interest Law Review Volume 20 Issue 3 Article 7 4-20-2017 Cook v. Snyder: A Veteran's Right to An Additional Hearing Following A Remand and the Development of Additional Evidence Shawn
More informationMedical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN
Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 WO State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, v. Plaintiff, Broan Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV-0--PHX-SMM ORDER
More informationCHAPTER 4 ENFORCEMENT OF RULES
400. GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 4 ENFORCEMENT OF RULES 401. THE CHIEF REGULATORY OFFICER 402. BUSINESS CONDUCT COMMITTEE 402.A. Jurisdiction and General Provisions 402.B. Sanctions 402.C. Emergency Actions
More informationCase 1:16-cv RGA Document 16 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 363 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:16-cv-00092-RGA Document 16 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 363 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THOMAS E. PEREZ, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABOR, Plaintiff,
More informationCase Doc 4096 Filed 06/04/13 Entered 06/04/13 13:18:57 Main Document Pg 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUTPCY COURT
Pg 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUTPCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSIOURI IN RE: Patriot Coal Corporation, et al. Case No.: 12-51502 Chapter 11 Debtors, Judge Kathy A. Surratt-States MOTION
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
Appeal: 16-2432 Doc: 109 Filed: 06/29/2017 Pg: 1 of 17 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2432 MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION; MURRAY AMERICAN ENERGY, INC.; THE AMERICAN
More information