Nagy v. Donovan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that workers who performed splining of a hub did not produce an article because their work constituted service with respect to an already completed article
• finding the product on which plaintiff worked “was clearly the beginning and the end product” and that “[pjlaintiff ... merely serviced an already completed article”
• interpreting eligibility requirements to receive trade adjustment assistance benefits established by 19 U.S.C. § 2272(3) (1980)
• “the term ‘article’ ... does not embrace activity by a worker that does not result in the creation or manufacture of a tangible commodity, or that does not cause the transformation of an existing product into a new and different article.”
• “[T]he term ‘article,’ as used in section 222(3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).