Unit 2 Administrative Law
Exercise
Discussing the following topics:
1.What is the issue of the case?
Whether the respondent had acted without and in excess of its powers and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings of fact.
2.On what grounds , did the petitioner seek an annulment of the award?
Petitioner State Employee’s Retirement System seeks an annulment of the award , on the grounds that respondent Commission had acted without and in excess of its powers and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings of fact.
3.What finding did the respondent make upon the facts adduced at the hearing?
Upon the facts adduced at the hearing , summary of which has been given above, respondent Industrial Accident Commission made its finding that Karl Lund had sustained injury occurring in the course of and arising out of employment proximately causing his death from inhalation of carbon monoxide fumes.
4.What is the holding of the District Court?
The District Court of Appeal held that death arose out of and in
the course of employment , and the award is affirmed.
5.Why neither awards may be annulled?
Because there are two conclusions which fairly may be drawn from the evidence , both of which are reasonable, the one sustaining the other opposing the right to compensation . Nor may an award be rejected solely on the basis of moral or ethical considerations.
P28 exercises
Discussing the following topics;
1.What is the issue of this case?
Whether or not to allow a deportable alien to leave the country voluntarily.
2.What is the opinion of the Court of Appeals?
Exarchou has sustained his burden of established good moral character under s 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 , former 8 U.S.C.155 (c) ,and is entitled to further consideration of his application . Whether any other factors may warrant the Service in not following its 1951 and 1953 grants of discretionary relief to Exarchou is not now before us.
3.The Immigration and Naturalization Service granted the Relator --Appellant Permission twice for relief he now seeks , what are they?
In March 1951 , following the initial determination of his deportability ,it recommended that his deportation should be suspended. And for the second time ,the Service granted him permission to depart from the country voluntarily.
4.What is the decision of the Special Inquiry Office upon the investigation of Immigration and Naturalization Service?
The Special Inquiry Officer , reversing the Service’s earlier position , found that Exarchou had not sustained his burden of proof as to good moral character and hence was ineligible for the exercise of discretion which would allow him to depart from voluntarily.
5.Why did the court reverse the shift of position of the Service?
The evidence is not sufficient to justify the Service’s present shift to position as to Exarchou’s good moral character.
Unit 3 Antitrust Law P 37
Discussing the following topics
1. What is the cause of action of the lawsuit brought by the United States against Sealy, Inc.?
The United States alleged that Sealy ,Inc.had violated 1 of the Sherman Act , 26 Stat.209 , as amended , 15 U.S. C. 1, by conspiring with its licensees to fix the prices at which the retail
