Section 801 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

4 Citing briefs

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. Dye

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed July 28, 2006

    Despite the UMWA's argument to the contrary, MSHA does not substitute itself for the mine operator when it provides technical assistance to operators. See Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890, 903 (6th Cir. 1994) (stating that holding the government liable for undertaking to fulfill a duty owed by an operator to its miners would require the court “to ignore [the] plain language” of 30 U.S.C. § 801). In addition, there is no factual support for such nation- Case 1:06-cv-01053-JDB Document 13 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 17 of 20 The UMWA’s reliance on the state-sponsored preliminary4 report to West Virginia Governor Manchin on the Sago Mine Disaster, filed at Docket No. 12, appearing to recommend a nation-wide audit of SCSRs, provides no grounds for mandamus relief against MSHA with respect to this issue.

  2. United Mine Workers of America v. Dye

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed June 19, 2006

    30 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq. In order to prevent deaths, serious physical harm, and occupational diseases, see 30 U.S.C. § 801(c), Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor, acting through MSHA, to promulgate mandatory safety and health standards for the Nation's mines and to conduct regular inspections of those mines. 30 U.S.C. §§ 811 and 813.

  3. Hoosick Falls Associates v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed August 31, 2016

    Case 1:16-cv-00596-LEK-DJS Document 43-1 Filed 08/31/16 Page 7 of 10 6 Nation’s coal or other miners.’” 2015 WL 5773578, at *5 (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 801(g)) (emphasis added). Here, none of the provisions of New York’s Environmental Conservation Law that Plaintiff cites in support of its negligence per se claims were enacted to protect against Plaintiff’s alleged economic injury.

  4. USA v. Arif

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed March 31, 2015

    Vs. Reich (510 U.S. 200) (1994). "Within the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 (Mine Act) (30 USCS §§ 801 et seq.), pertaining to coal miners and other miners, a statutory-review scheme set forth in 30 USCS §§ 815, 816, and 823-under which scheme any challenges to the Mine Safety and Health Administration's enforcement measures are reviewed by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and then by the appropriate Federal Court of Appeals-prevents a Federal District Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over pre- enforcement claims arising under the Mine Act". 15.