Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Yetman v. Garvey

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
261 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2001)


Facts

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Act), 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(4), made the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) responsible for ensuring airline safety and obligated the FAA to set a maximum term of service for pilots. In 1958, the FAA promulgated the Age Sixty Rule, which capped the maximum age for pilots at 60 years based on an increased risk of sudden incapacitation from heart attack or stroke at that age. Although the Act permitted the FAA to grant exemptions, the FAA did not grant any exemptions to the Age Sixty Rule, which withstood numerous challenges. In 1995, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey (defendant) announced that exemptions would be unavailable absent a showing of a new method for assessing a pilot’s risk of sudden incapacitation. Bert Yetman and other pilots (plaintiffs) devised and passed a rigorous battery of medical and neuropsychological testing. The plaintiffs sought exemptions to the Age Sixty Rule, arguing that the inclusion of a new neuropsychological screening tool, the CogScreen-AE, rendered their testing process sufficient to assess the abilities and risks of pilots approaching 60 years of age. The FAA had developed and used the CogScreen-AE to assess the cognitive function of pilots seeking medical exemptions. However, the FAA maintained that (1) there was not enough data to ensure the new test reliably measured cognitive function, and (2) there was no established cutoff score to determine when a pilot was unfit to fly. The FAA issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ exemption requests. The plaintiffs sought review of the FAA’s order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.