American Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a law survives a vagueness challenge if it “provide[s] sufficient guidance so that reasonable regulated parties, aware of the goal the regulation seeks to accomplish, have fair warning of what the regulation requires” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• expressing confidence that a regulation is not vague if a “reasonable” regulated party “will prove able to implement the Secretary’s standard in practice”
• rejecting vagueness argument related to a definition of “fire” that required certain non-flaming material to “present a reasonable chance of bursting into flame”
• affirming dismissal of pro se complaint upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, in part, because prisoner’s complaint, on its face, appeared to be untimely 28 and barred by the applicable statute of limitations
• interpretation of mine safety regulation to cover material that “reasonably” might ignite not unconstitutionally vague
• “[The] incorporation of the AAA rules constitutes clear and 24 unmistakable evidence that contracting parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).