Legal Opinion
Marshall v. Conway
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 28, 1980No. Civ. A. 79-4511PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
HUYETT, District Judge.
I. Findings of Fact
1. The stipulation of uncontested facts, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A, is adopted and incorporated herein as if set out in full.
2. Defendants have been given an opportunity for a hearing in regard to each citation and order issued.
3. Defendants’ refusal to permit an authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor to enter upon and to conduct an inspection of their mine constitutes a continuing threat to the health and safety of miners and interferes with, hinders, and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Bernitsky v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brock ex rel. Williams v. Peabody Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor on Behalf of Thomas L. Williams v. Peabody Coal Company and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Chapman Merrell v. Peabody Coal Company and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, United Mine Workers of America on Behalf of James Rowe v. Peabody Coal Company, William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, on Behalf of I.B. Acton v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, United Mine Workers of America v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987