§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America et al v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaim And In Support Of Its Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment

25 Cited authorities

  1. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

    542 U.S. 55 (2004)   Cited 1,456 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law

  2. Carmona v. Toledo

    215 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2000)   Cited 568 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "failure to authenticate" a document at summary judgment "precludes consideration of" that document

  3. Telecommunications Research Action v. F.C.C

    750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 913 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court did not have jurisdiction to review a rule or issue a writ of mandamus because of a special review statute that assigned judicial review to the courts of appeals

  4. Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Heckler

    789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that an organization that served senior citizens has standing to challenge HHS regulation that affected its programs

  5. Cutler v. Hayes

    818 F.2d 879 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 131 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this factor requires a court to consider whether the "delay may be undermining the statutory scheme"

  6. In re American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United

    372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that, under APA, federal agency must respond to rulemaking petition

  7. In re Bluewater Network

    234 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2000)   Cited 61 times
    Observing that mandamus relief is "reserved only for the most transparent violations" of duties to act

  8. In re International Chemical Workers Union

    958 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 54 times
    Noting that in response to a rulemaking petition, OSHA admitted a "need to embark promptly on further rulemaking"

  9. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co. v. U.S.E.P.A

    8 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 1993)   Cited 42 times
    Holding the EPA has the discretion to consider an untimely certification by a state agency

  10. Public Cit. Health Research Grp. v. Auchter

    702 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1983)   Cited 52 times
    Holding OSHA unreasonably delayed rulemaking where "[a]mple evidence in the record indicate[d] a significant risk that some workers, who are actually being exposed to levels of [dangerous chemicals] greater than the 10 ppm 'average' . . . currently encounter a potentially grave danger to both their health and the health of their progeny"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 327,983 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,392 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  13. Section 555 - Ancillary matters

    5 U.S.C. § 555   Cited 1,116 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Providing that an agency's notice of denial "shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial"

  14. Section 2303a - Post serious marine casualty alcohol testing

    46 U.S.C. § 2303a   Cited 1 times

    (a) The Secretary shall establish procedures to ensure that after a serious marine casualty occurs, alcohol testing of crew members or other individuals responsible for the operation or other safety-sensitive functions of the vessel or vessels involved in such casualty is conducted no later than 2 hours after the casualty occurs, unless such testing cannot be completed within that time due to safety concerns directly related to the casualty. (b) The procedures in subsection (a) shall require that

  15. Section 21M:3 - Alcohol and drug testing

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21M § 3   Cited 1 times

    Personnel employed by tank vessels operating within the waters of the commonwealth shall be subject to this section. An owner or operator of a tank vessel shall have policies, procedures and practices for alcohol and drug testing that comply with 33 CFR Part 95 and 46 CFR Parts 4 and 16. The owner's and operator's policies, procedures, and practices shall ensure that: (i) a person neither consumes, nor is under the influence of, alcohol on a tank vessel while on the waters of the commonwealth unless

  16. Section 95.020 - Standard for under the influence of alcohol or a dangerous drug

    33 C.F.R. § 95.020   Cited 7 times
    Referring to intoxication in the course of operating a vessel

  17. Section 4.06-20 - Specimen collection requirements

    46 C.F.R. § 4.06-20

    (a)Alcohol testing . (1) When conducting alcohol testing required in §4.06-3(a), an individual determined under this part to be directly involved in the SMI must provide a specimen of their breath, blood, or saliva to the marine employer as required in this subpart. (2) Collection of an individual's blood to comply with §4.06-3(a) must be taken only by qualified medical personnel. (3) Collection of an individual's saliva or breath to comply with §4.06-3(a) must be taken only by personnel trained