March 2012 Archives

On April 11, 2012, The Historical Society for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Litigation Section of the District of Columbia Bar are hosting an event that may serve to trigger the memories of many DC Circuit lawyers. The event, “Madness or Badness: Duran and the Evolution of the Insanity Defense in the D.C. Circuit”, will discuss a notorious case that took place in the 1990’s, during the Clinton era.

Francisco Duran was convicted of attempting to assassinate President Bill Clinton, after a two-week long trial. During his trial, the insanity defense was invoked. The defense was rejected by the court.

In the case of Hard Rock Holdings v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board in the Board’s request to seek enforcement of a court order directing Hard Rock Holdings, LLC., to bargain in good faith with a labor union.

Hard Rock Holdings owns the famous Hard Rock Cafe. The quick facts of the case are as follows: The NLRB certified an election where a bargaining unit was named to represent the valet parking employees of the company.

Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was honored at the 44th Convention of the National Black Law Students' Association in March, states the NYU School of Law on their site.

Judge Edwards was given the A. Leon Higginbotham award is given annually at the conference. The award is named after a former federal judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation, in a suit brought by one if its former franchisees.

Metroil was a gas station franchisee and operated a gas station located next to the Watergate in Washington D.C. The gas station was owned by Exxon and in 2009, the company sold the station to Anacostia, a gasoline distributor. Metroil continued to operate the station.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will not be blocking the release of the Ted Stevens report, reports The Wall Street Journal.

To refresh your recollection, the 500-page report deals with the 2008 corruption case against the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Lobbying on health issues does not belong in the court system. That's the message the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sent in CoMed Inc v. Sebelius.

The Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs filed a lawsuit against the Federal government to suspend the Food and Drug Administration approval of thimerosal-preserved vaccines, claiming that the vaccines pose numerous threats, including autism in children.

The Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled this week that the numerous citations by Dayton Tire will not be classified as willful citations, as characterized by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

This decision came "grudgingly, as the court was clearly upset at the fact that OSHA's commission dragged their feet on their review -- an issue that was raised by Dayton Tire during the appeal.

Does the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will decide later this year, as it sits poised to hear oral arguments this week from four major lawsuits challenging the authority of the EPA.

These lawsuits are brought by four industry groups. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases by virtue of the Clean Air Act. Of course, this was with the caveat that it could only do so if the gases posed a risk to human health.

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) graphic warning labels for cigarettes are not only bad for the tobacco business, they’re unconstitutional.

When the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considers an injunction against the new labels in April, it can also consider the latest ruling finding that the labels violate the First Amendment. The D.C. District Court ruled this week that the warnings violated the tobacco industry’s free speech rights without a compelling government interest.