Documents

Reply Brief — Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2002

See also id. at 9 (“repair a hand sink, clean some walls, air conditioning vents and storage areas”; “eliminate storage that may attract rodents and insects”; “clean the restroom floors, and provide … unlawful procedure or been guilty of arbitrary or capricious action; or has acted without material evidence to support its decision” (Watts v.

Petition — Department of Air Force v. Rose

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1976

The purpose is clear, i.e., to have the Air Force and the District Court co-author a student contribu- tion to a legal periodical. ‘Time cost is another matter. … The government maintains that the comments por- tion of the study is exempt from disclosure under the terms of the fifth exemption from the Act.

Appendix — National Ass'n v. Defenders of Wildlife

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2007

Although the Service originally specified a 60-day comment period for these revised section 7 regulations, the comment period was extended until September 30, 1983. … Section IX — Program Review: Explains how EPA would periodically review the AZPDES program for im- plementation and continued consistency with Clean Water Act requirements.

Petition — Quinn v. Muscare

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1976

The face shall be clean- shaven, except that a non-eccentric mustache is per- missible. … The face shall be clean-shaven, except that a non-eccentric mustache is permissible.

Record and brief — Schiavo Bros. v. United States Gypsum Co.

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 1982

See, especially, Comment i. Compare Id. § 14.6 (special damages recoverable for holdover tenancy). … There was also evidence that Michael Schiavo made periodic efforts to keep the junk car dealers in line, and to force them to keep their properties clean.

Jurisdictional Statement — United States v. American Bldg. Maint. Industries

Supreme Court brief · Jurisdictional Statement · 1975

In some cases Benton’s activities were cilities to cleaning services, in other cases it assumed responsi- bility for maintaining heating, air conditioning, elec- trical and plumbing services, and paid … There is ac- cordingly no issue relative to ABMI’s activity, and the comments on that activity in the Jurisdictional State- ment are plainly irrelevant.”

Motion Amicus Curiae — National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers

Supreme Court brief · Motion Amicus Curiae · 1974

Compare National Automatic — Laundry & Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 143 US. App. D.C. 274, 291, 443 F.2d 689, 706 (1971). … The Court further pointed out in the Allen case, when commenting upon a provision in the Voting Rights Act 24 > permitting the Attorney General of the United States to institute actions to enforce

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Parts Galore L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. Jacqueline Harrison

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Mar 12, 2021

United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Mfg. Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) had unduly narrowed the ADA’s coverage, Congress in 2008 amended the Act. … BethEnergy Mines, Inc. 501 U.S. 680, 697 (1991) (cleaned up).

Amicus Brief — Mission Insurance v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1983

The Federal Water Quality Im- provement Act of 1970 amended and was incorporated within the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1948, 33 U.S.C. 51161 (1970). … See also Pan American World Air ways, Inc. v. C. A. B., 380 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1967), where, in considering a statute which also resulted from conference, the Court stated: We do not agree.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Elzie Ball, et al., Petitioners v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Aug 6, 2018

Act Amendment Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. … Act Amendment Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Prologue — Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans

Supreme Court brief · Prologue · 1953

I didn’t ask you for any comment. I will ask you torlook at the thiee items just - A. ‘Yes. *s Q. … Said <air- Ss 3 ; | i = P . me é e ‘ ih : Sate \ Act, Public, Na. 846, 74th Con- [fol.811] 5.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Giordano v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1969

He further testified that he cleaned somewhere between 900 © and 1400 doves. … An- | drew Williams testified that during approximately a two- week period-he cleaned between nine and fourteen hundred mourning or turtle doves and placed them in plastic bags for various hunters,

Appendix — UMCO Energy, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (No. 08-418)

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2008

'S The discussion and comments to the preamble state: The [Pa. … (“Mine Subsidence Act”), the Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. § 691.1 et seq.

Appendix — Drummond Co. v. Hodel

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1987

In response to a question from a commentator about whether the fee was to be paid on “clean coal” or “run of mine” coal, OSM stressed that the erucial factor was not the composition of the coal, but … Court for the District of Columbia); 42 U.S.C.A. § 7607 (Clean Air Act) (certain regula- tions subject to review only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia) ; 47 U.S.C.A

Amicus Curiae Brief — Department of Homeland Security, et al., Petitioners v. Regents of the University of California, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Oct 4, 2019

to act. … In Montana Air Chapter No. 29 v.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Attorney General of California v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1992

Comment: Again, because many consumers may only travel during certain periods of the year, fair- ness requires that awards be valid for at least a full twelve month cycle. 3.5 Fees Any airline which … carrier hav- ing authority under subchapter IV of this Act to provide interstate air transportation. 23.

Supplemental Appendix — General Motors Corp. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Supplemental Appendix · 1990

This action comes on to be heard on defendant General us is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) enforcement authority under the Clean Air Act (the “Act’’), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. … Hamisch, the Chief of the State Air Branch of EPA Region I, on May 30, 1986 Region I was prepared to of the revised SIP to EPA SA-5 it sf Ht ar Hae i AGRE FP Hie af 41 +7 itis! Hi!

Amicus Curiae Brief — Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2005

Gizoni, EE AIR Cnn een me: 14 Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., Inc., 230 F.3d 461 RE a re 10, 13 Summerlin v. Massman Const. … In the early periods of maritime commerce, when the oar was the great agent of propulsion, vessels were entirely unlike those of modern times — and each nation and period has had its peculiar agents

Amicus Curiae Brief — Michael Sackett, et ux., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jun 17, 2022

The Clean Water Act Protects the Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity of the Nation’s Waters The text, structure, and history of the Clean Water Act—as well as this Court’s decisions—all confirm … Indeed, Congress itself referred to wetlands as waters or water bodies repeatedly in the Clean Water Act.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2004

Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1041 (2d Cir. 1985) (“CERCLA is not a regulatory standard-setting statute such as the Clean Air Act.”). … Id. at 624-25 (quoting Willis Reese, Comments on Babcock v. Jackson, 63 Colum. L.