Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Congress paralyzes section 925(c) of the Gun Control Act

Article Abstract:

The US 3d Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Rice v. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms exemplified why Congress should reconsider its funding of agencies that review applications from convicted felons seeking to regain firearm privileges under section 925(c) of the Gun Control Act. The Third Circuit stated courts have the authority to review the applications, since the congressional funding bills did not expressly bar courts from reviewing them. The court's position was representative of how gun policies can become inconsistent without agency participation.

Author: Wen, Brendon Y.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Administrative Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0001-8368
Year: 1997
Gun control

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


A choice between irreparable harm and Occupational Safety and Health Act penalties

Article Abstract:

The US 1st Circuit Court of Appeals' enforcement of a statutory preclusion of judicial review of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conduct in Northeast Erectors Ass'n v. Secretary of Labor violated the plaintiff's due process rights. The decision put the plaintiff building contractor in a position of either following OSHA orders or creating unsafe working conditions. The result in this case does not follow the intent of Congress when promulgating its preclusion rule.

Author: Buchman, Barry I.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Administrative Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0001-8368
Year: 1997
United States. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Due process of law, Administrative sanctions

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


A balanced approach to judicial review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeal for the 1st Circuit, in Associated Fisheries v. Daley, ruled that the substantive standards of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, do not apply retroactively. The RFA as amended provides for judicial review of agency rules concerning small business to prevent inequitable regulatory impact. The Court's ruling may impair judicial review of regulatory flexibility decisions.

Author: Goldberg-Cahn, Michelle
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Administrative Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0001-8368
Year: 1999
United States, Small business, Industry regulations, Government regulation of business, Trade regulation, Retroactive laws

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Judicial review of administrative acts, Case Note
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Why do you think it's yours? An exposition of the jurisprudence underlying the debate between cultural nationalism and cultural internationalism
  • Abstracts: Protecting the environment: finding the balance between Delaney and free play. Less access
  • Abstracts: Abolition of the presumption of 'doli incapax' and the criminalisation of children
  • Abstracts: Interaction of the estate tax marital deduction and qualified plan and IRA benefits
  • Abstracts: No longer your piece of the rock: the silent reorganization of mutual life insurance firms. Exploring collateral consequences: Koon v. United States, third party harm, and departures from Federal Sentencing Guidelines
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.