Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
0.57s
Appellants Brief — Philadelphia v. New Jersey
Supreme Court brief · Appellants Brief · 1978
The comment submitted by the Department, was surprisingly candid: “A. … Areas where putrescible waste is stored or deposited must be cleaned within each twenty- four hour period, and no such waste may be stored longer than twenty-four hours without acceptable treatment
437 U.S. 617Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gaspee Project, et al., Petitioners v. Diane C. Mederos, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Dec 10, 2021
Id. at __ (cleaned up). … Ct. at 2382 (cleaned up).
Petitioners Reply Brief — Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Reply Brief · 1980
bin'hida44') ale oe alone s 3a Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, as amended, P.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seg. ....... 3a I di kv ou ob wl ves seebc kev 3a TE REDO os sas cjcdive … Another statute which requires cost-benefit evaluations for some regulations but not others is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., which were passed the same
448 U.S. 607Amicus Curiae Brief — SD Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2006
comprehensive proposed amendments to the Clean Water Act. … Finally, section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which concerns “discharge[s] of Gredged or fill material,” 33 U.S.C. § 1344, is triggered only when “dredged or fill material,” which the Clean Water Act
547 U.S. 370Amicus Curiae Brief — Atlantic Richfield Company, Petitioner v. Gregory A. Christian, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · May 30, 2018
Particularly for the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Petroleum Association, their members operate within heavily regulated federal arenas under the purview of the Clean Water Act, the Clean … Air Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, to name just a few.
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Nov 29, 2023
In Engine Manufacturers, the Court considered a Clean Air Act provision prohibiting States from “adopt[ing] or attempt[ing] to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles … This Court rejected that theory, explaining that it “confuse[d] standards with the means of enforcing standards”—a “distinction” that was evident in multiple provisions of the Clean Air Act that immediately
Petition — Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1980
«sca . a0 nketesothuke ess enesaaeeee 28 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 42 U.S.C., section 7607 (Summ, TBOee ha en Seen rl Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C., section 2058 (1976).. 28 Department … I 1977); Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, § 305, 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (Supp. I 1977). *°In fact, it may apply to formal rulemaking, too.
447 U.S. 921Supreme Court brief · Emergency Application · Sep 19, 2024
Dep’t of Agric., 779 F.3d 258, 267 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up) (citations omitted); see also Nat’l Env’t Developmental Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F.3d 999, 1008 (D.C. … Air. Regul. Grp. v.
Supreme Court brief · Jurisdictional Statement · 1980
to recover clean-up costs. … The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is considerably less oppressive in its op- eration than §316 of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law here un- der attack.
449 U.S. 803Joint Appendix — Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist.
Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · 2002
“Pollute"” means to perform any act or acts destroying, contaminating, fouling or otherwise altering the physical, topographic, chemical or biological properties of a park, including land, waters, … and on the expiration of such period, shall indicate illegal or overtime parking.
534 U.S. 316Brief for the Petitioner — Railway Clerks v. Association for Benefit of Noncontract Employees
Supreme Court brief · Brief for the Petitioner · 1965
You further stated this figure did not inchide 339 employees | _ classified as Lead Janitors or Cleaning Women as of October 15, 1962. … R-1706, et al. — fe . : , z The various comments made in the remainder "of your letter of January 11, 1963 have been given . careful consideration by the Board.
380 U.S. 650Opposition — Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Department of Environmental Resources
Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1977
The national ambient air quality standards adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act continue to be exceeded. … Sec- tion 10(a) of the Air Pollution Control Act, 35 PS. §4010 (a). 10.
430 U.S. 955Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jurijus Kadamovas, Petitioner v. John F. Caraway, Warden, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Oct 16, 2019
Kadamovas’ consistent complaints over an extended period of time. Dkt. No. 92-10. According to Dr. Buckley, Mr. … Kadamovas had “safe, clean and healthy environment, including smoke-free living area.” Id. at 92-9. Warden Krueger also failed to ensure that Mr. Kadamovas had a safe, clean and healthy environment.
Transcript of Record — New York Central R. Co. v. Ambrose
Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1930
And he would clean up the bins on that floor? A. It is very rarely they clean up the bins. Q. You just let the grain remain there? A. They are self cleaning, the majority of the bins. Q. … payments or contributions run- ning over the entire period when the contributions would have continued.
280 U.S. 486Appendix — United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Sholly
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1981
Public comments on the Assessment originally were due by April 11, 1980, but the period was extended to May 16, 1980. 45 Fed. Reg. 30,760 (1980). … The draft version of this assessment and two subsequent addenda were issued for public comment, and by the close of the comment period on May 16, 1980 approximately 800 responses have been received.
451 U.S. 1016Petitioners Brief — Michael Sackett, et ux., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · Apr 11, 2022
See Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. … See Edelman, Federal Air and Water Control: EPA had taken a similarly narrow view in its administration of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1992
Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 8&5 (1983) ' SEN r 17, 24 State ex rel. Cornellier V. Black, 425 N.W. 2d 21 et a 17 United Air Lines, Ine. Vv. … Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 808, 809 n.3 (1989) (citing United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMann, 434 U.S. 192, 199 (1977)).
505 U.S. 88Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 11, 2025
(cleaned up)). … Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96–97 (1995); see also Morales v.
Amicus Curiae Brief — United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1985
Amerdments of 1972 and the Clean Water Act of 1977, prepared by the Environmental Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress (Comm. … Hi ; " } . . ii i are to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Water Act of 1977, prepared
474 U.S. 121Supreme Court brief · Petition for Rehearing · Oct 31, 2025
United Air Lines, Ine. (1999) o..cccccccccssccceseseeeesesseeees 7 NEW CONTROLING AUTHORITY «Joseph Simone,Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … This case also presents a clean vehicle to re-solve the constitutional question.
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.