Cafisi v. L&L Holding Co., LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that OSHA is not required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis in promulgating a standard under section 6(b)(5
• holding that Congress had struck policy balance in enacting statute that agency “ ‘shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, ... that no employee will suffer[health detriments]’ ”
• holding that OSHA is not required to conduct a cost- benefit analysis in promulgating a standard under section 6(b)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act because “Congress uses specific language when intending that an agency engage in cost- benefit analysis”
• stating that “the post-hoc rationalizations of the agency or the parties to this litigation cannot serve as a sufficient predicate for agency action.”
• stating that substantial evidence is \relevant evidence\ that a \reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion\
• saying that because health standards presented special problems Congress chose in Sec. 6(b)(5) to impose separate requirements for \a subcategory of occupational safety and health standards dealing with toxic materials and harmful physical agents\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).