Documents

Appendix — AG Industrial Manufacturing Inc. v. Waterkeepers Northern California

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2005

On June 28, 2000, WaterKeepers sent AG Industrial notice of its intent to sue for violations of the Clean Water Act (“the Act’). … Brown for purposes of ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Motion — Kimber Petroleum Corp. v. Daggett

Supreme Court brief · Motion · 1988

The Act’s principal means of en- couraging private party cleanups is the risk of treble dam- ages that may be imposed on a private party if govern- ment must clean up the toxic contamination with public … Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217 (1912); Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Seegers, 207 U.S. 73 (1907).

Reply Brief — PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1307 (2019) (No. 17-1705)

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2019

Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(2) (re- stricting review of certain Clean Air Act regulations in this manner). … Respondent and the Government also cannot square their interpretation with statutes like the Clean Air Act and CERCLA, which contain direct review provi- sions comparable to the Hobbs Act’s but also

Opposition Brief — CropLife America v. Baykeeper

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2010

The case involves a straightforward issue of federal statutory construction — the meaning of “discharge of a pollutant” under the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “the Act”) — and whether this phrase clearly … Similarly, pesticides may be regu- lated by EPA under both FIFRA and the Clean Air Act. See 58 Fed. Reg. 28,094 (May 12, 1993).

Joint Appendix — Shell Oil Co. v. United States (Nos. 07-1607, 07-1601)

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · 2009

JA-552 NOTE: Bulk shipments of D-D which exceed 500 gallons contain a Hazardous Substance (dichloropropene-dichloropropane mixture) as defined by the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Parts 116 and 117). … Divisibility Introductory Comment.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Chevron Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. City of Hoboken, New Jersey, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Feb 27, 2023

The Second Circuit rejected the plaintiff ’s argument that the Clean Air Act’s displacement of any remedy under federal common law could “give birth to new state-law claims.” … Although the Clean Air Act displaces any remedy under federal common law, it does not displace the entire source of law altogether. See id. at 95 & n.7; accord United States v. Swiss Am.

Petition — Cotton Warehouse Ass'n v. Marshall

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1980

At the close of the comment period, OSHA conducted hearings in three cities for a total of 14 days.** The comments and exhibits received before the hearings, the written and oral testimony of the hearing … In the Clean Air Act, for example, Congress required the Environmental Protec- tion Agency to perform a “cost benefit analysis” before prohibiting the manufacture or sale of a fuel or fuel additive

Amicus Brief — Atkins v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1978

For example, an amendment proposed this year to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act would have provided for legis- lative veto provisions over proposed executive branch actions but these provisions … Immigration and Naturalization Service, NO. 77-1702, (th Cir), may not be decided for a lengthy period.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — The Cordish Companies, Inc., Petitioner v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Nov 3, 2022

Surfaces exposed to the virus can be cleaned. … See, e.g., Bel Air, 2021 U.S. Dist.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 28, 2025

Air Act cases. … Local The Clean Air Act divides judicial review of EPA actions into one of two general categories: actions that are either nationally applicable or of nationwide effect go to the D.C.

Respondents Brief — Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Def., 137 S. Ct. 811 (2017) (No. 16-299)

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 2017

... 5 Pe i sinnecntinciineenienenscinenanetameininniianieneseinimmimmenpnenes 5 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seg. ............ 37 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 e€ 8€@. ..........c0. … See Harrison, 446 U.S. at 592 n.9 (re- jecting parallel argument for narrow construction of the provision for review of agency action in the courts of ap- peals in the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401

Appendix — Fuhrman & Forster Co. v. Commissioner

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1941

The marketing vear for each com- modity shall be ascertained and prescribed (11) DIB MWE ON ITS FLY AIRS PROT, 2a Cet SA mane Sale ot VES EN Re TS EN NS ela ie PEE NA GEE Bit Hie Uo LRAT Sag Ma … than the average margin was during the period before and after the tax.

Reply Brief — Franklin County County Power Power of of Illinois, LLC v. Sierra Club Club (No. 08-1304)

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2008

Air Act (“CAA”) citizen suits threatens the entire electric utility industry by turning over to private parties the function of enforcing the environmental laws. … Instead, respondent asserts that petitioners are merely arguing “for repeal of the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision.” Opp. at 16. This argument is wide of the mark.

Opposition Brief — American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Browner

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2000

Circuit’s longstanding construction of § 109(b) of the Clean Air Act. … Circuit Court of Appeals holding that “the [Clean Air Act] and its legislative history make clear that economic consider- ations play no part in the promulgation of ambient air quality standards under

Respondents Brief — Western Oil & Gas Association v. California

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1983

"See, e.g., Clean Air Act, § 110, 42 U.S.C, § 7410 (Supp. … See, eg., Clean Air Act §118, 42 U.S.C. §7415 (Supp. V 1951); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act § 6001, 42 U.S.C. § 6961 (1976 & Supp.

Respondents Brief — Christina Alessio, Petitioner v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Oct 11, 2023

For years, she has complained about United’s use of chemical cleaning products and air fresheners in the aircraft cabins within which she works. … The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, correctly determined that res judicata barred Alessio from relitigating her claim for injuries due to exposure to cleaning products and air fresheners

Amicus Curiae Brief — Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2004

The regulations also potentially impair the ability of these states to comply with their federally required air quality plans under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). … Chronic exposure to elevated ambient PM levels over a long period has been associated with de- creased lung function in certain groups of people, includ- ing children and teenagers. David E.

Respondents Brief — Milwaukee v. Illinois

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1981

General Motors Corp., 406 U.S. 109 (1972) has not been preempted by either the Clean Air Act or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92- 500) and Congress has not changed … General Motors Corp., supra, (post 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act); Vermont v. New York, supra, (post 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — United States, et al., Petitioners v. Nicolas Talbott, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Aug 27, 2026

Emmert in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Navy; the United States Department of the Air Force; Gary A. … Driscoll, the Department of the Army, Acting Secretary of the Navy Terence G. Emmert, the Department of the Navy, Acting Secretary of the Air Force Gary A.

Memorandum — Western Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Alaska

Supreme Court brief · Memorandum · 1978

quality standards pursuant to the 4a Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the extent that activities authorized under this Act significantly affect the air quality of any State. … Secretary, subject to the right of judicial review as provided in this Act, if such default continues for the period of thirty days after mailing of notice by registered letter to the lease owner