Documents

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lewis B. Jones, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Sep 15, 2022

Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. 8 Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192, 201 (1997). … in the text of the limitations period.”

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1968

No. 522,321, except for the period 1924-1934 when “Drytex” was used instead. In the. 1941-1964 period some 2,000,000 cases of ‘‘Driwell’’ towels were sold. … « 24 APPENDIX “D” Excerpts from Trademark Act of 1946, as Amended Intent of Act.

Petitioners Brief — U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 615 (2015) (No. 15-290)

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 2015

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a); see Pub. L. … If the DE fails to act within the 45-day period, he must use the procedures of 33 CFR 330.5 in order to modify, suspend, or revoke the NWP authorization.

Opposition Brief — Alabama ex rel. Siegelman v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1989

.-. 6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act eis WN MEI nc nn isso cscececccecesncnnsen 2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. … EPA considered all pubiic comments as required by CERCLA and its regula- tions.* In fact, EPA went so far as to reevaluate its decision based upon after-the-fact comments by Alabama legislators.

Opposition — Butler v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1980

Cox extended the period for filing the record in the Court of Appeals to April 19, 1979. The Brief for Appellant was filed June 3, 1979. The Brief for Appellee was filed July 3, 1979. … Neither was there any evidence of the identity of the Naval Air Station.

Record and brief — George Parks, Grant B. Turner, William A. Taylor, and James A. Vaughn, Partners as Turner, Parks Co., Appellants, vs. Jonathan L. Booth

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 1879

This is too evident to need further comment. … The fact is, that appellee could not and did not attempt to supply the demand. fle was not makine and selling his ma- . . } ad | act ’ j > >) Wii ~) : ehine during the period of infringement.

Opposition Brief — Macario v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1994

Two commenters state that the comment period was too short, and object to the FAA’s denial of a request for an extension. The FAA disagrees. … The NPRM 45 day comment period is in accordance with established FAA practices. Also, none of the comments provided justifi- cation to support the request.

Transcript of Record — Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1963

refueling, turn-around inspection, fire guard aircraft cleaning, ¢te., and not eme ‘rgeney repairs or periodic checks or maffifenance, such as. are normally per- formed in “the shops of the ow ner of … Line serv iee shall be deemed to mean only routine Jine service, such as refueling, turn-around inspection, fire _ guard, aircraft cleaning, ete., and not emergency repairs or periodic checks or maintenance

Amicus Curiae Brief — South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2003

water act and that rules promulgated under this chapter not impose requirements beyond those of the federal clean water act.” … At present, Idaho does not maintain and administer an approved NPDES program under the Clean Water Act.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — CoreCivic, Inc., Petitioner v. Sylvester Owino, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Apr 18, 2023

We were required to clean our living area each day, including making our bed and cleaning the floor, the toilet, the basin, the walls, the furniture, and the air outlets. … known as the yard, vacuum the floors, clean the air conditioning outlets, which tasks were assigned depending on the group I was in. 6.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — James H. Webb, Jr., Secretary of the Navy v. Carmelo Maldonado

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1987

VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 (k) 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 (d) Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988 Clean Air Act § 304(d), 42 U.S.C. 7604(d) Miscellaneous: … Delaware Valley I involved Section 304(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7604(d), but the Court concluded that it should be interpreted in accordance with the case law addressing the Civil Rights Attorney

Amicus Curiae Brief — Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1992

, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (1988), the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642 (1988). and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992 (1988). … § 6901-6992 ( 1988); Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (1988); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§$ 7401-7642 (1988)

Opposition Brief — Eric Tyrell Johnson, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · Mar 4, 2026

Linde Air Prods. Co., 336 U.S. 271, 275 (1949)). 4. … In the same period, investigators observed petitioner and a woman visit Spruill at his residence. Id. at 101a-102a.

Joint Appendix — Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · 1987

See, eg., Clean Air Act § 304(a), 42 U.S.C. §7604(a) (1982) (“any person” can sue); Metropolitan Washington Coalition for Clean Air v. Wash- ington, D.C., 511 F.2d 809, 814 (D.C. … Cir. 1975) (discussing stand- ing requirements under the Clean Air Act). 76 way at the summary judgment hearing, although it had raised the standing issue at the pleading stage.’

Memorandum — United States Department of Energy v. Ohio

Supreme Court brief · Memorandum · 1991

the Clean Water Act … Those cases held that the federal facilities provisions of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act did not waive federal] sovereign immunity from state permit requirements.

Appendix — Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Board of Public Utilities

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1984

C. 14:1-1.1 and 14:1-1.2, the Board HEREBY WAIVES the five (5) day period for written comments on the proposed tariffs. … McGlynn, Esq., for Air Products Company, Intervenor (Stryker, Tams & Dill, Attorneys) William R.

Petition for Rehearing — Marvin v. Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie #200 (No. 08-657)

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Rehearing · 2008

The Court makes no comment that the peti- tioner testified that the condenser was obstructing plaintiffs exit egress and petitioner had the nondel- egatable duty to remove the condenser unit. … We do have laws to protect Life and Safety ojr all our people, including 9-11-01 Terrorism Act; Pa-. triot Act; Hate Crimes; RICCO; and other laws, rulles and regulations.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Utility Water Water Act Group Group v. Riverkeeper, Inc. (Nos. 07-597, 07-588, 07-589)

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2009

Lewis, Clean Air Task Force, Boston, Massachusetts, for Amici Curiae Healthlink, Kentucky Resources Council, New Kngland Clean Water Action, The Ohio Environmental Council, and Ohw Valley Environmental … period ends first. 122a 33 U.S.C. § 1344 [Clean Water Act § 404].

Reply Brief — Bennett v. Spear

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1997

CU s vce cccccawcachewsscihamavis 12 STATUTES Administrative Procedure Act Pee POR a hbde Wea uceees eanekeeeeaubnceoseeelus | > es PND & Cewalveess eauetenes wousuasmuikt 11 Clean Air Act Se … Respondents’ attempted analogy to the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7604) relies on language found in the Clean Air Act which is not present in the Endangered Species Act.

Amicus Brief — Hancock v. Train

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1976

A proper interpretation of this section is crucial to the outcome of this case, since, as discussed in the Alabama brief, respondents’ argument that Section 118 of the Clean Air Act subjects federal … Through the years, the attor- neys for the State of Alabama have acquired a thorough understanding of the Clean Air Act and the issues involved in the present case, and have demonstrated the ability