OSHA at the Threshold: Setting Permissible Exposure Levels For Known Carcinogens After American Petroleum Institute

This Comment examines the nature of scientific uncertainty that complicates precision in setting permissible exposure levels for carcinogens under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). The author compares OSHA\u27s policy for dealing with these uncertainties with the legal and factual findings required by the Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute as a prerequisite to the promulgation of standards. The author argues that the future of OSHA\u27s attempts to set exposure levels depends on a partnership between courts and the agency to confront these scientific issues. The author argues that reviewing courts should yield to OSHA\u27s expertise in analyzing, interpreting, and applying complex scientific data in an effort to enhance the efficiency of OSHA

The Dona Maria Mining and Milling Company

A Thesis submitted to the department of Mining Engineering of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Mining Engineer

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-EQUAL PROTECTION-JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RACE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

The highest courts of Missouri and Michigan, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, had held that restrictions against occupancy of land by negroes were enforceable by injunction. On certiorari, held, reversed. Enforcement of such restrictions by state courts constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws. Enforcement by courts of the District violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and also it is contrary to the public policy of the United States to allow a federal court to enforce an agreement which a state court could not constitutionally enforce. Shelley v. Kraemer, (U.S. 1948) 68 S.Ct. 836. Hurd v. Hodge, (U.S. 1948) 68 S.Ct. 847

REAL PROPERTY-THE DOCTRINE OF PRESUMPTION OF GRANT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Defendant claimed ownership of a barren island named Palmyra through a series of conveyances extending back nearly eighty years, but his chain of title was defective in that no grant away from the Hawaiian government was shown. He and his predecessors had paid taxes for many years, but had occupied the island only during occasional visits and had made no sustained efforts at commercial exploitation. The United States brought an action to quiet its title as successor to the Hawaiian government but the district court ordered title quieted in defendant on the basis of a presumed grant, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, held, affirmed. Continuing claim of ownership can raise a presumption of grant. Actual occupancy is not required if the land in question is not suitable for occupancy. United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. 256, 67 S.Ct. 1287 ( 1947 )