BIRTLE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (47 total)

• E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1977)
  …d the new plant standards were only “presumptively applicable” to individual plants.12 We granted the chemical companies’ petitions for certiorari in order to consider the scope of EPA’s authority to issue existing-source regulations. 425 U. S. 933; 426 U. S. 947. We also granted the Government’s cross-petition for review of the ruling that new-source standards are only presumptively [*124] applicable. Ibid. For convenience, we will refer to the chemical companies as the “petitioners.” The Issues The broad…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Harrison v. PPG Indus., Inc., 446 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1980)
  …ction” in light of the fact that noncompliance with the agency’s policy could have led to criminal liability and actions for double damages by affected employees. But see West Penn Power Co. v. Train, 522 F. 2d 302, 310-311 (CA3 1975), cert. denied, 426 U. S. 947; 522 F. 2d, at 317-319 (Adams, J., dissenting), where the court refused to considera notice of violation issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act to be final agency action despite the severe penalties that could have attached to future noncomplianee. W…
• United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
  …nce .... There is an established tradition that permits a summary of evidence to be put before the jury with proper limiting instructions.” Scales, 594 F. 2d at 563; see, e.g., United States v. Esser, 520 F. 2d 213, 218 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 947, 96 S.Ct. 3166, 49 L.Ed.2d 1184 (1976); Gordon v. United States, 438 F. 2d 858 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828, 92 S.Ct. 139, 30 L.Ed.2d 56 (1971). Thus, we conclude that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not bar use of non-expert summary tes…