1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 790 F.2d
  5. 790 F.2d 154 (1986)
 

GATES & FOX CO., INC. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447, 84-1614 and 85-1054.

790 F.2d 154 (1986)

GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. William E. BROCK, Secretary of Labor, Petitioner, v. GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided May 13, 1986.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Harold Gordon, with whom Robert D. Roadman, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioner in Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447 and 84-1614 and cross-respondent in No. 85-1054. William H. Roberge, Jr., Silver Spring. Md., also entered an appearance for petitioner in Nos. 80-1446 and 80-1447.

Kenneth Hellman, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents in Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447 and 84-1614 and for cross-petitioner in No. 85-1054.

Joseph M. Woodward, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for respondents in Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447 and 84-1614 and for cross-petitioner in No. 85-1054.

Anthony J. Steinmeyer and Marleigh D. Dover, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for respondents in Nos. 80-1446 and 80-1447.

Linton W. Hengerer and Judith N. Macaluso, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Arlington, Va., entered appearances for petitioner in No. 85-1054.

Before WALD, SCALIA and SILBERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SCALIA.

SCALIA, Circuit Judge:

Gates & Fox Company, Inc., challenges its citation for violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.800(b)(3) (1985), a safety regulation which requires companies engaged in excavating tunnels and shafts to provide their employees with rescue equipment in certain circumstances. The issue we address is whether the regulation describes the circumstances with sufficient clarity to provide constitutionally...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases