Vagueness Of Regulations

24 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Cal. Citizens Band Ass'n v. United States & Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  375 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1967-03-07 ·cited 98×
  The court held that the Federal Communications Commission did not err in promulgating amended rules for the Citizens Radio Service without public evidentiary hearings, as the changes constituted general rulemaking and did not violate statutory notice or hearing requirements.
• Diebold v. Marshall
  585 F.2d 1327· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while the Commission's interpretation of the safety regulation was reasonable, its application to Diebold violated due process due to vagueness and lack of adequate warning.
• State OF Md. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  530 F.2d 215· 4th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the EPA's regulation requiring employers to submit mass transit incentive plans was impermissibly vague and lacked adequate notice, rendering it invalid. It also found that the EPA could not direct a state legislature to enact laws.
• Downing v. Williams
  624 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred by disregarding the jury's findings of fact, which were supported by substantial evidence, and by independently re-examining the record on issues of procedural due process and First Amendment rights.
• Shawgo v. Spradlin
  701 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were afforded due process through a post-suspension hearing and that their privacy interests were not violated by the disciplinary actions taken by the police department.
• Mailloux v. Kiley
  448 F.2d 1242· 1st Cir.· 1971-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that sanctions against a teacher for conduct not previously deemed impermissible, without notice, violate due process.
• Mallick v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers
  644 F.2d 228· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union cannot discipline members for exercising rights protected by the Landrum-Griffin Act and that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is procedurally barred if a directed verdict motion was not renewed.
• Waters v. Peterson
  495 F.2d 91· D.C. Cir.· 1973-10-12 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding that the disciplinary action against the appellants was based on their conduct, considering the content and effect of their sign, rather than solely on the sign's content.
• Collins v. Bowles
  152 F.2d 760· Emer. Ct. App.· 1946-01-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that warehouse receipts for bulk whiskey are commodities subject to federal price control regulations under the Price Control Act, and the regulations were not invalid due to vagueness or conflict with the Twenty-First Amendment.
• Faultless Division v. Secretary OF Labor
  674 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the employer did not have sufficient warning that its hydraulic presses required guarding under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) due to lack of clear regulatory language and absence of recognized hazard.
• Hoffman Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & John T. Dunlop
  546 F.2d 281· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the regulation cited for the violation was void for vagueness as written at the time, and therefore the citation and fine were improperly imposed.
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Schuylkill Metals Corp.
  828 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's broadened interpretation of 'earnings' under the MRP provisions of the lead standard was void for failure to provide adequate notice and engage in required notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
• In re Establishment Inspection of Metro-East Mfg. Co. In The Matter of Establishment Inspection of Century Casting Corp.
  655 F.2d 805· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, arguing that the regulation clearly permits the use of personal sampling devices.
• United States v. Tull
  769 F.2d 182· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant violated the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by placing fill on wetlands and navigable waters without a permit, and that the Acts were constitutional as applied. The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to
• Staughton Lynd v. Rusk
  389 F.2d 940· D.C. Cir.· 1967-12-20 ·cited 13×
  The Secretary of State may restrict the use of a passport in designated foreign areas but cannot withhold or revoke a passport solely because an applicant refuses to assure they will not travel to those areas without a passport.
• Gates & FOX Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & William E. Brock
  790 F.2d 154· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the regulation failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice that self-rescuers were required in areas not near an advancing face, thus the citation for violation was improper.
• Pa. Power & Light Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Raymond J. Donovan
  737 F.2d 350· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while an employee violated the grounding regulation, the employer could not be cited for a serious violation because the record lacked substantial evidence that the employer failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover and prevent the employee's unfores
• Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & F. Ray Marshall
  630 F.2d 1094· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Section 6(f) of OSHA does not bar a procedural challenge to a regulation's validity in an enforcement proceeding, and that the Secretary's revisions to the Walsh-Healey standard were not substantive modifications requiring Section 6(b) procedures.
• Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Hufstedler
  499 F. Supp. 496· S.D. Fla.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the H.E.W. regulation prohibiting federal funding recipients from providing significant assistance to discriminatory organizations was a valid interpretation of Title IX and applied to the University of Miami's relationship with the male-only Iron Arrow Honor
• Sill v. The Pa. State Univ.
  462 F.2d 463· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the university's disciplinary regulations were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that the use of a special disciplinary panel did not violate procedural due process. Students placed on probation lacked standing to challenge the disciplinary proced
• Walton v. City OF Atlanta
  181 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was properly predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and that the challenged city ordinances did not deprive taxi drivers of constitutional rights, thus denying injunctive relief.
• Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  941 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1029(g)(3) requiring corrective action for respirator fit after atmospheric testing is reasonable and that CF & I had fair notice of this interpretation, thus constituting a violation.
• Van v. Robinson
  472 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Postal Service employee's termination for failure to meet financial obligations was lawful, even after filing a Wage Earners' Plan, as the plan did not supersede agency regulations or prohibit such termination.