Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Brock ex rel. Williams v. Peabody Coal Co.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided July 7, 1987No. Nos. 85-1714, 85-1716, 85-1717, 86-1002 and 86-1027Published

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

  1. Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Kitty B. Roberts and James E. Roberts, Wage Earner v. Casper Weinberger, Secty. Of HewCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1975
  3. National Industrial Sand Ass'n v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
  4. Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n v. HathawayDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1975
  5. Emery Mining Corp. v. Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API