HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012394.jpg
989 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal case summary
File Size:
989 KB
Summary
This document summarizes the legal case of Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman. The Ninth Circuit initially ruled that the President acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with the Competition in Contracting Act and awarded attorneys' fees to Lear Siegler. However, upon a rehearing en banc, the court reversed its decision, ruling that Lear Siegler was not a prevailing party and withdrew the prior opinion.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The President |
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lear Siegler, Inc., Energy Products Division | ||
| Ninth Circuit |
Timeline (2 events)
Lear Siegler, Inc., Energy Products Division v. Lehman, 842 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1988)
Rehearing en banc, 893 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1990)
Relationships (3)
→
refused to comply with
→
→
initially ruled in favor of
→
→
later ruled that
→
Key Quotes (1)
"utterly at odds with the texture and plain language of the Constitution,"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012394.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,052 characters)
(
6) Lear Siegler, Inc., Energy Products Division v. Lehman, 842 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1988), withdrawn
in part 893 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc): The President refused to comply with provisions of the
Competition in Contracting Act that he viewed as unconstitutional and thereby allowed for judicial
resolution of the issue. The Ninth Circuit rejected the President's arguments about the constitutionality
of the provisions. The court further determined that Lear Siegler was a prevailing party and was
entitled to attorneys' fees, because the executive branch acted in bad faith in refusing to execute the
contested provisions. In this regard, the court stated that the President's action was "utterly at odds with
the texture and plain language of the Constitution," because a statute is part of the law of the land that
the President is obligated to execute. Id. at 1121, 1124. On rehearing en banc, the court ruled that Lear
Siegler was not a prevailing party and withdrew the sections of the opinion quoted above.
6) Lear Siegler, Inc., Energy Products Division v. Lehman, 842 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1988), withdrawn
in part 893 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc): The President refused to comply with provisions of the
Competition in Contracting Act that he viewed as unconstitutional and thereby allowed for judicial
resolution of the issue. The Ninth Circuit rejected the President's arguments about the constitutionality
of the provisions. The court further determined that Lear Siegler was a prevailing party and was
entitled to attorneys' fees, because the executive branch acted in bad faith in refusing to execute the
contested provisions. In this regard, the court stated that the President's action was "utterly at odds with
the texture and plain language of the Constitution," because a statute is part of the law of the land that
the President is obligated to execute. Id. at 1121, 1124. On rehearing en banc, the court ruled that Lear
Siegler was not a prevailing party and withdrew the sections of the opinion quoted above.
C
(
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012394
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document