Search for: "Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Doe"
Results 1 - 20
of 40
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2013, 4:23 pm
The Court initially noted that the parties' cba did not require a penalty of termination in these circumstances, and observed that the District did not have a zero tolerance policy.The Court also rejected a suggestion that the award violated public policy, concluding: The ... determination that reinstatement with conditions was the appropriate penalty did not violate public policy (see Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v Mine Workers, 531 US… [read post]
5 May 2017, 6:00 am
” Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 5:59 am
See Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 6:13 am
" (Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:35 pm
Fola Coal Company, LLC. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 7:40 am
The Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund Global recommended the exclusion of Duke Energy Corp. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 3:58 pm
(United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 12:18 pm
V, XIV. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 8:27 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> CTS Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Tammy Harrison saw Dr. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
Supreme Court in Decker v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
Eastern Airlines, [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 6:59 am
Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:16 pm
District Court in Eastern Washington. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am
Although the demolition or renovation of a single-family residence is exempt from Asbestos NESHAP requirements, the exemption does not apply where the demolition is part of a larger commercial project. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 6:00 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:24 am
Click Here DECISIONS Arkema, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm
., with Blue Tee Corp., former operator of the mine, for $1.36 million. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:44 pm
The company also failed to treat the sludge to reduce pathogens and maintain records at its land application site at the Doe Run Desloge Mine Tailings Site in Desloge, Mo. [read post]
