National Mining Ass'n v. Chao (2001)
green
· 21 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 7 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
National Mining Ass'n v. Department of Labor (2002)
“In seeking to be excused from liability,” the District Court explained, “the operator becomes the ‘proponent’ of a remedial order of the ALJ and, therefore, the party to which [the APA] assigns the burden of proof.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Chao, 160 F.Supp.2d 47, 71 (D.D.C.2001); see also Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. at 278 , 114 S.Ct. 2251 .
Accordingly, “[t]he burden of proof mandated by the APA is a default rule that applies in the BLBA context only in the absence of an express statutory or regulatory provision to the contrary.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Chao, 160 F.Supp.2d 47, 70 (D.D.C. 2001), rev’d in part on other grounds, Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849 (D.C.
green
Amax Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, a… (2002)
Section 725.503 “shift[s] the burden of production, rather than the burden of proof,” as it is merely a “rebut-table evidentiary presumption[ ] enacted to ease the burden on claimants in black lung claims adjudications.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Chao, 160 F.Supp.2d 47, 70-71 (D.D.C.2001), rev’d in part on other grounds and ajfd in part by Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 871-72 (D.C.Cir.2002) (failing to address the district court’s ruling on § 727.503, but n…
green
Amax Coal Company v. OWCP (2002)
Section 725.503 “shift[s] the burden of pro- duction, rather than the burden of proof,” as it is merely a “rebuttable evidentiary presumption[] enacted to ease the burden on claimants in black lung claims adjudica- tions.” Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47, 70-71 (D.D.C. 2001), rev’d in part on other grounds and aff’d in part by Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849 , 871- 72 (D.C.
green
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Salazar (2009)
Ass’n v. Dir., Office of Thrift Supervision, 934 F.2d 1127, 1137 (10th Cir.1991); Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 , 904 (5th Cir.1983); Cabinet Mountains Wilderness/Scotchman’s Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 685 (D.C.Cir.1982); Nat'l Mining Ass’n v. Chao, 160 F.Supp.2d 47, 56 (D.D.C.2001), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds by Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor, 292 F.3d 849 (D.C.Cir.2002) ("The D.C.
green
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Scarlett (2009)
Cir. 1982); Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47, 56 (D.D.C. 2001), aff’d in part and -10- As Al-Fayed indicates, there exists a strong presumption in this Circuit that when a statute provides for judicial review but does not specify any standard for that review, it should be construed to include the APA standard.
green
Natl Mining Assn v. DOL (2002)
See NMA, 160 F. Supp. 2d at 65 .