Legal Opinion

Former Employees of Murray Engineering, Inc. v. Chao

United States Court of International Trade

Decided June 28, 2005No. Slip Op. 05-78; Court 03-00219Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

POGUE, Judge.

In this action, the plaintiffs challenge the third remand determination of the Department of Labor (“Labor”) regarding their claim for trade adjustment assistance (“TAA”) benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2271 — 2395 (2000) (“the Act”). The plaintiffs ask the court to decide whether the former employees of Murray Engineering, Inc., Complete Design Service (“Murray”) are eligible for TAA benefits pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2272 (West Supp.2005) where (a) Murray’s workers produced designs for dies, and (b) even though there have been no increased imports of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. F. Ray MarshallCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1978
  2. United Shoe Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. Catherine Bedell, ChairmanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
  3. Former Employees of Hawkins Oil & Gas, Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of LaborUnited States Court of International Trade · 1993
  4. MacHine Printers and Engravers Association of the United States v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1979
  5. Morristown Magnavox Former Employees v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary, Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API