Legal Opinion
Barrick Gold Exploration, Inc. v. Hudson
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided June 16, 1993No. C2-93-0104PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRAHAM, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Barrick Gold Exploration, Inc. (“Barrick”), Gateway Coal Company, (“Gateway”), Maxus Energy Corporation (“Max-us”), and Creighton Hills Coal Co. Inc. (“Creighton”) challenge the constitutionality of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, Pub.L. No. 102-486, § 9701 et seq., 106 Stat. 2776, 3036-3056 (“the Act”), codified at 26 U.S.C. § 9701 et seq., which was passed on October 24,1992 as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Barrick, Gateway and Creighton have ceased their coal mining operations but are subject to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- In Re Chateaugay CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Davon, Inc. v. ShalalaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Holland v. Double G Coal Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1995
- Barrick Gold Exploration, Inc. v. HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1995
- LTV Steel Co. v. ShalalaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.