Association of Bituminous Contractors, Inc. v. Apfel

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that because Justice Kennedy’s opinion cannot be considered a “narrower holding” entitled to precedential weight, “the only binding aspect of Eastern Enterprises is its specific result-holding the Coal Act unconstitutional as applied to Eastern Enterprises”
• distinguishing between explana- tions of a rationale implicitly adopted by the agency in its prior actions and explanations that offer new explanations for conduct previously defended on other grounds
• because the plaintiffs were not substantially identical to Eastern “our basic inquiry in resolving appellant’s due process challenge remains the same ... ”
• “Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in the judgment is of no help in appellant’s efforts to cobble together a due process holding from Eastern Enterprises’ fragmented parts.”
• \Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in the judgment is of no help in appellant’s efforts to cobble together a due process holding from Eastern Enterprises’ fragmented parts.\
• “Justice Kennedy’s due process reasoning can in no sense be thought a logical subset of the plurality’s takings analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).