In the District Court of the United States, Southern District of Ohio, April Term, 1856. Ex Parte Robinson, Marshal of Said District, Habeas Corpus

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Download Full-text

United States: District Court for the Southern District of New York Receipt of Statement of Interest of the United States in Connection with Litigation Involving Iran

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/s0020782900032563 ◽

1981 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

pp. 171-185

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

New York ◽

The United States ◽

District Court ◽

Southern District

Download Full-text

United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2203521 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 82 (4) ◽

pp. 833-837

Author(s):

Eric S. Koenig

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

New York ◽

United Nations ◽

The United States ◽

District Court ◽

Palestine Liberation Organization ◽

Southern District ◽

The Status ◽

The United Nations ◽

Summary Judgment

Plaintiff, the United States, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and four individuals seeking an injunction to close the PLO’s Permanent Observer Mission (Mission) to the United Nations as violative of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA). The district court (per Palmieri, J.) entered summary judgment for defendants and held: (1) the ATA does not require the closure of the PLO’s Mission to the United Nations; (2) the status of the PLO’s Mission, an invitee of the United Nations, is protected by the Agreement Between the United States and the United Nations Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (Headquarters Agreement); and (3) Congress did not intend the ATA to supersede the Headquarters Agreement.

Download Full-text

Recent Developments in Health Law: Constitutional Law: Despite Reservations, the Second Circuit Defers to State Court's Determination That a Preponderance of the Evidence Standard is Constitutional for Recommitment of NRRMDD Defendants – Ernst J. v. Stonea

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1111/j.1748-720x.2006.00104.x ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 826-828

Author(s):

Erika Wilkinson

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

New York ◽

Due Process ◽

Mental Disease ◽

The United States ◽

Fourteenth Amendment ◽

District Court ◽

Habeas Corpus ◽

Equal Protection Clause ◽

Court Of Appeals

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Judge's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Appellate Division to conclude, in light of clearly established federal law as expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a New York statute providing for the recommitment of specific defendants who plead not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect (NRRMDD) under a mere “preponderance of the evidence” standard does not violate either due process or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Download Full-text