CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS

| Table of Forms

Law Journals

| Law Students

| iLaw Dictionar

| News

				United States
				Constitutional Law
				US Supreme Court Case Summaries
				March 21, 2000

US Codes

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

|California Evidence Code

| California Rules of Court

| Federal Courts

| Lawyers

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

War

On Terrorism

Special Report

USA Constitutional Law
Table of Contents: Primary

United States Constitutional Law
United States Supreme
Court Case Summaries
March 21, 2000

United States constitutional Law
United States Supreme Court Case Summaries
March 21, 2000

U.S. Supreme Court Opinions
Case Summaries -March 21, 2000

--------------------------------

CIVIL PROCEDURE VENUE UNDER Federal Arbitration Act

CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. v. BILL HARBERT
CONSTRUCTION CO., A DIVISION OF BILLHARBERT INTERNATIONAL, INC. (3/21/00 - No. 98-1960)
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued January 10, 2000--Decided March 21, 2000
Petitioner Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., and respondent Bill Harbert Construction
Company agreed, inter alia, that any disputes arising from Harbert's
construction of a Mississippi mill for Cortez Byrd would be decided by
arbitration. When such a dispute arose, arbitration was conducted in Alabama
and Harbert received an award. Cortez Byrd sought to vacate or modify the
award in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, where the contract was performed; and seven days later Harbert
sought to confirm the award in the Northern District of Alabama. The latter
court refused to dismiss, transfer, or stay its action, concluding that
venue was proper only there, and it entered judgment for Harbert. The
Eleventh Circuit held that, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), venue
for motions to confirm, vacate, or modify awards was exclusively in the
district where the arbitration award was made, and thus venue here was
limited to the Alabama court.
Held: The FAA's venue provisions are permissive, allowing a motion to
confirm, vacate, or modify to be brought either in the district where the
award was made or in any district proper under the general venue statute.
Pp. 3-11.
169 F. 3d 693, reversed and remanded.
Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-1960.html
CIVIL PROCEDURE VENUE UNDER Federal Arbitration Act CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. v. BILL HARBERT-USACL

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al. v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORP. etal.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
(3/21/00 - No. 98-1152)
Argued December 1, 1999--Decided March 21, 2000
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U. S. C. §301 et seq., grants
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the designee of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS), the authority to regulate, among other
items, "drugs" and "devices," §§321(g)-(h), 393. In 1996, the FDA asserted
jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, concluding that, under the FDCA,
nicotine is a "drug" and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "devices" that
deliver nicotine to the body. Pursuant to this authority, the FDA
promulgated regulations governing tobacco products' promotion, labeling, and
accessibility to children and adolescents. The FDA found that tobacco use is
the Nation's leading cause of premature death, resulting in more than
400,000 deaths annually, and that most adult smokers begin when they are
minors. The regulations therefore aim to reduce tobacco use by minors so as
to substantially reduce the prevalence of addiction in future generations,
and thus the incidence of tobacco-related death and disease. Respondents, a
group of tobacco manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers, filed this suit
challenging the FDA's regulations. They moved for summary judgment on the
ground, inter alia, that the FDA lacked jurisdiction to regulate tobacco
products as customarily marketed, that is, without manufacturer claims of
therapeutic benefit. The District Court upheld the FDA's authority, but the
Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Congress has not granted the FDA
jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. The court concluded that
construing the FDCA to include tobacco products would lead to several
internal inconsistencies in the Act. It also found that evidence external to
the FDCA--that the FDA consistently stated before 1995 that it lacked
jurisdiction over tobacco, that Congress has enacted several
tobacco-specific statutes fully cognizant of the FDA's position, and that
Congress has considered and rejected many bills that would have given the
agency such authority--confirms this conclusion.
Held: Reading the FDCA as a whole, as well as in conjunction with Congress'
subsequent tobacco-specific legislation, it is plain that Congress has not
given the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily
marketed. Pp. 8-40.
153 F. 3d 155, affirmed.
O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J.,
and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-1152.html
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONFOOD AND DRUGADMINISTRATION, et al. v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORP. etal.

-----------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAW US SUPREME COURT CASE SUMMARIES
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
FindLaw Law Library - legal guides, memos and briefs
http://library.findlaw.com
FindLaw Professionals
http://profs.findlaw.com/
FindLaw Lawyer Marketing
http://marketing.findlaw.com/
FindLaw Tech Deals
http://techdeals.findlaw.com
Insurance Center:
Compare rates from top-rated insurance companies at
ReliaQuote.com Rated #1 by Forbes and SmartMoney:
http://www.reliaquote.com/findlaw

------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________
Have a BEAUTIFUL DAY!!!!!

CORTEZ BYRD CHIPS, INC. v. BILL HARBERT CONSTRUCTION COFAA's venue provisions are permissiveMarch 21, 2000