Brock ex rel. Williams v. Peabody Coal Co.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Concurrence
RUTH BADER GINSBURG,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment and in much of the court’s reasoning. However, I would rest rejection of the Secretary’s position not on the section defining “miner,” section 3(g), 30 U.S.C. § 802(g), but solely on the language and structure of section 115, 30 U.S.C. § 825.
One need not exclude “laid-off miners,” see Court’s Opinion at 1136, from the 3(g) definition of “miner” for all purposes in order to resolve this case, and I do not believe the panel intended or has made so sweeping a disposition.1 See Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Kitty B. Roberts and James E. Roberts, Wage Earner v. Casper Weinberger, Secty. Of HewCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1975
- National Industrial Sand Ass'n v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n v. HathawayDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1975
- Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986