Documents

Joint Appendix — American Paper Institute, Inc. v. American Elec. Power Service Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · 1983

Due to the clean-burning nature of natural gas, the local air quality impacts of increased gas-fired co- generation are minimized. … The facilities easily obtained the required air emissions per- mits and have been operating in compliance with applicable air quality regulations.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2002

HAS SAID ARE BEYOND THE REACH OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT. … See Revisions to the Clean Water Act Definition of “Discharge of Dredged Material,” Final Rule, 64 Fed.

Amicus Brief — Hartigan v. General Electric Co.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1983

NRC, 598 F. 2d 759 (3d STATUTES AND REGULATIONS: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. § 2011 E passim Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. … The State’s only argument to avoid preemption was that the Spent Fuel Act is a valid radioactive pollution control measure authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — United States v. Jones

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1949

G19 5 + . ee Ae Pe tet Air Line v0 nited State s, 26 a tt Ss. 302, 304, 67.L. Ed. 664 , sean eo ~7790 | a . … “This Court’ said as much’ : the ease of ‘‘Seaboard Air Line v. Unite d States, 261 U.S. 302, 405, 67 L.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, LLC, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jun 18, 2020

Both parties requested and were provided an extended period in which to file their proposed recommended orders. … App. 33 comment on Hollywood Hills’ CEMP prior to its approval, but did not review it or seek any changes to it. 7.

Amicus Curiae Brief — National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1994

For a three-month period, she received phone calls and letters daily advising her of her imminent death. Dr. … The Riverside Center spent $35,000 in cleaning, replacing the carpet, hiring a security guard and relocating.

Appendix — EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1977

through the use of a tail gas clean up system. … They may be dis- charged into water, vented into the air, or collected in a land-fill. Air discharge brings into play the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq.

Transcript of Record — Dow Co. v. Halliburton Co.

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1945

So the lead acts in that manner. That is the way which lead and copper act as inhibitors. … No, just the comments. Mr. Lyon read one of the comments, and I would like to read them ali. The Court: All right. A.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Drew

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1974

Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 TIM: O0Ocu2 ssUa da scat eeaee obser e oe 4 Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm’n v. … Govern- iment would keep the shotgun, so to speak, behind the deor, loaded, well oiled, cleaned, ready for use but with the hope it would never have to-be used.”

Opposition Brief — Bersani v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1989

eee ee ei ae do 6 ke ke ew A eek area 2 Statutes and regulations: Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 ef seq.: re ee ag on Wb ee kw a 8 ia Gr oe lg ee eae o> 8 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. … As the court of appeals explained, however, EPA’s ap- plication of the regulations in this case is entirely faithful to the purposes of the Clean Water Act.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Griffin v. Michigan

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2005

We've got that comment. What else? A. … They found car cleaning type equipment in the trunk (Coleman at 135, App. 107a). While Mr.

Record and brief — 14 Penn Plaza LLC, et al v. Steven Pyett, et al

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 2009

one Hispanic employee to clean alone. … Brief for the Petitioners at 32, citing the only decision on point thus far, arising under the Railway Labor Act, not the National Labor Relations Act, see Air Line Pilots’ Ass'n Intl v.

Brief for United States — United States v. Bayer

Supreme Court brief · Brief for United States · 1947

It is evident that Radovich had decided that his best course was ‘to. make a clean breast of his activities, and that he was will- ing to cooperate with the ee asked for his version of the matter and … lished as too short, and wrote in, tentatively, a period of eight days.

Application — Scott Bedke, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al. et al., Applicants v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Application · Dec 20, 2021

Within 60 days from the end of the notice-and-comment period, the Secretary must either publish the standard or decline to issue the standard. Id. § 655(b)(4). … At the end of that period, the Secretary must promulgate either the same standard or a revised standard in light of the notice-and-comment process. Id. § 655(c)(2).

Amicus Curiae Brief — United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1985

F. . 3e) (10664) ccc cccccccccccccesccceeeees 3 ie e 18 rr 15 MISCELLANEOUS: A Legislative History of the Clean Water Act, ee passim A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Con- trol Act Amendments … Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92- 500, 86 Stat. 816. In 1977, the Act again wa substantially revised and renamed the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. §1251 note.

Respondents Brief — Chevron Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. City of Oakland, California, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · May 10, 2021

Moreover, the Clean Air Act (CAA) displaced the body of federal common law that petitioners contend controls here. … Because the Clean Water Act had displaced that body of federal judge-made law, the Court framed the relevant inquiry as whether the Act preempted the plaintiff’s state-law claims—a question it answered

Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari — DeForest Radio Co. v. General Elec. Co.

Supreme Court brief · Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1931

was kept immersed in liquid air and was never sealed off from the pump. … period daring which the tuhe was cleaning itself he called tte first stage.“ Of the second stage, that is, after the a pin inn snp he wt tek u.

Transcript of Record — United States v. Mine Workers

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1947

aire, Ohio. aire, Ohio, Beott Coal Co., 413 N. … Volumé of air—a. The main intake air current shal!

Transcript of Record — Harrison v. Greyvan Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1946

C] (1) Clean and adjust distributor points and check timing. ©) () Tighten intake and exhaust nianifold and check air leaks. … Act?

Record and brief — Morgan’s Louisiana and Texas Railroad and Steamship Company, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Board of Health of the State of Louisiana, and the State of Louisiana

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 1884

It cannot descend through a cargo, nor caiuid it descend through an air-tight ceiling; that in order to clean a vessel, have to take that ceiling out. … vs oh ni alte ie Oo 2 dine ee Nl ci 15 _ Chief Justice Marshall, in commenting on this Act of 1799, in the case of Gibbons vs.