Documents

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — BYD Company Ltd., Petitioner v. Alliance for American Manufacturing, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Aug 8, 2022

United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). … Cir. 1988) (cleaned up). “Reckless disregard” means that the speaker acted with a “high degree of awareness of [the statement’s] probable falsity.” Garrison v.

Appendix — Cambridge Wire Cloth Co. v. Laitram Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1989

Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608, 85 USPQ 328 at 330 (1950)(quoting Royal Typewriter Co. v. … Now, that is not the only comment with regard to this.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Pronsolino v. Nastri

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2003

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Ninth Circuit’s decision ignores the principles of federalism upon which the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) strategy to clean the Nation’s waters was based. … Hale, Comment: Pronsolino v. Marcus, The New TMDL Regulation, and Nonpoint Source Pollution: Will the Clean Water Act’s Murky TMDL Provision Ever Clear the Waters?, 31 Envtl.

Record and brief — Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 2009

Once an entity is identified as a PRP, it may be compelled to clean up a contaminated area or reimburse the Gov- ernment for its past and future response costs. … Restatement (Second) of Torts §433A, Comment i, p. 440 (1963-1964).

Amicus Curiae Brief — Gonzalez, In re (No. 06-175)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2006

Also, the period of cell phone use was short, whereas cancer often takes a long time to develop®. … Many other states adopting new policies to improve school indoor air quality were reported by Bernstein (2002).

Reply Brief — Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Apr 9, 2025

Under respondents’ rule, the NFL could not challenge the regulation because networks currently air games only three or four nights per week. … But respondents have continued to act as though the waiver reinstatement accomplished a great deal.

Brief for the National Labor Relations Board — National Labor Relations Board v. White Swan Co.

Supreme Court brief · Brief for the National Labor Relations Board · 1941

. - » ettttimmcasitti Watt s Sat a e INDEX : : Page PD MOT 36 cncesdssconaarddb ves aaweseéawnhaawaeow aire . … Seo Paterson Call and Newark Call during this period. * Act of June 25, 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U..S. C., Supp. V, Sec. 213 (a) (2).

Petition — Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1983

Acting pursuant to authority conferred by 21 U.S.C. … Through government records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, he discovered that other nearby ranches had been given a repopulation period of more than 26 weeks, extensions based on the

Transcript of Record — Railway Clerks v. Association for Benefit of Noncontract Employees

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1965

Thompson, and his comments on it yoquested. … —views of United Air Lines, Inc. on the various aspects of _ the handling of this case. We will, however, comment briefly . On two points made in your letter.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — May v. Brewer

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2003

Plainly, the Clean Elections Act cannot survive the test of United Foods. … The Clean Elections Act does not compel funding for a particular viewpoint or ideology.

Opinion — Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co. of Embden

Supreme Court brief · Opinion · 1925

West Virginia, 262 U. 8. 553, 596; Air-Way Corporation ¢. Day, 266 U. 8. 71, 81. Shafer et al. vs. Farmers Grain Co. of Embden et al. 9 and loading the wheat. … Act.

Transcript of Record — Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Plff. In Err. v. Keystone Elevator & Warehouse Company

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1915

That is, air drying; not steam drying. … so cleaned or treated.

Joint Appendix — United States, Petitioner v. Washington, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · Feb 23, 2022

Under this method, contaminated air is either removed from or clean air is added to the work environment. d. … And in the Hancock case, which is a Supreme Court case, the Court found that a state implementation plan under the Clean Air Act that had been approved by the EPA nonetheless waived—nonetheless violated

Amicus Brief — American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. Donovan

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1981

Decisions under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7411, which has to do with the establishment of performance standards for entirely new sources, place similar restraints on administrative … While the cited cases arose under the Clean Air Act, they involve the setting of standards limiting airborne concentrations of a pollutant just as the Cotton Dust and Lead cases do, and hence the statements

Transcript of Record — Woolley v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (No. 822)

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1957

between Eastern Air Lines, Inc., an air carrier covered under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act aforementioned, and plaintiff, as an employee under the provisions of said Act. … When such leaves are granted, the pilot shall retain and shall continue to accrue seniority during such period, provided that during such period the pilot maintains his air line pilot’s certi- ficate

Appellants Brief — Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection

Supreme Court brief · Appellants Brief · 1986

West Virginia Water Pollu- tion Control Act, W. Va. Code § 20-5A-1 et seq., 1981, 1984 Supp. (Water Pollution); West Virginia Air Pollution Control Act, W. Va. … Its judgments should be con- firmed. 6 See, e.g., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.; the Water Pollution Control Act,

Amicus Brief — Milwaukee v. Illinois

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1981

It has an interest in this case because the decision below interprets the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, PL 92-500, the Clean Water Act of 1977, PL 95-217 which amends the 1972 Act, and … Og) EERE POE SRB ee Se A SER RS 7 Statutes: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, eis MEN iacko hale cks das casthcs cscs canbvashanadeccuwsis ousrs 2, 6,9 Clean Water Act of 1977, P.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Brent Electric Company, Inc., Petitioner v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 584

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Oct 31, 2024

(cleaned up)). C. … Id. at 1359 (cleaned up).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2002

SMCRA also provides that nothing in it shall be construed as modifying the Clean Water Act. 30 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3). … Further, the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(a)(1), (c)(2), and (k), provides that compliance with an NPDES permit shall be deemed compliance with relevant provisions of that Act.

Opposition Brief — North Carolina v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1998

Water Act. … It involves no federal usurpation of State powers under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), nor any other issues of national significance.