Documents

Transcript of Record — Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1943

The ‘Air Bleaching Process’? consists of heating . … If plaintiff is entitled to recover for said taxes as- sessed and collected during the aforesaid period under Section 602% of Title IV of the Revenue Act of 1934 and under Seetion 702 of Title V of

Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Albuquerque v. Browner

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1997

, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-11(b)(1); the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d)(2); the Surface Mining Control and Recla- mation Act, 30 U.S.C. § 1235(k); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation … THE CLEAN WATER ACT CLEARLY AND UN- AMBIGUOUSLY PROHIBITS INDIAN TRIBES FROM ADOPTING WATER QUALITY STAN- DARDS WHICH ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN FEDERAL MINIMUM STANDARDS.

Opposition — Tennessee Water Quality Control Board v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1984

Whether the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. (Supp. … This interpretation of the opinion is consistent with the court's later comment that the State also has authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1288, to regulate pollution (Pet.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lance Hundley, Petitioner v. Ohio

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Dec 16, 2020

Was the act drawn out or instantaneous eruption of events?" … to act as second chair.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Serv-Air, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1968

The returning strikers had been members of eight dis- tinct crews prior to their September 2 walkout, excepting only Kuberskey and Ming, assigned to the Gear Box Room, and Gooch to the Cleaning Room … RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend®® that Serv-Air, Inc., its officers, agents, successors

Amicus Curiae Brief — Daniel Concepcion, et al., Petitioners v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, dba MLB, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 18, 2025

The exemption is indeed all of those things: Neither the Court nor any commentator has been able to offer any explanation for the exemption grounded in the Sherman Act’s common-law backdrop or its rule … Whatever the case, “[t]he orderly way to temper [the Sherman] Act’s 7 policy of competition is by legislation and not by court decision.” Alston, 594 U.S. at 96 (cleaned up).

Amicus Curiae Brief — BP p.l.c., et al., Petitioners v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Dec 22, 2020

All parties acknowledge that the federal common law still claimed by Petitioners was displaced by the Clean Air Act, as this Court held in AEP, 564 U.S. at 424. … Co., 805 F.3d 695, 698 (6th Cir. 2015) 30 (state common law nuisance for interstate pollution not preempted by Clean Air Act).

Opposition Brief — Seven Up Pete Venture v. Montana

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2006

However, citing the Montana Constitution's guarantee of “the right to a clean and healthful environ- ment,” Mont. Const. Art. … purely state-law ground that a State agency had correctly determined that they had violated a term of the leases by failing to take active steps to pursue the permitting process over a seventeen-month period

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Chevron Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. San Mateo County, California, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Dec 30, 2020

Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims that seek the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. 564 U.S. 410, 424 (2011). … To the contrary, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act both contain savings clauses that preserve state causes of action and suggest that Congress did not intend the federal causes of action under

Petitioners Brief — Arkansas v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1991

(EPA's position inconsistent with “federal water pollution control strategy engineered by the Clean Water Act and enhanced by Oklahoma law”), 90a (“We will not ascribe to the [Clean Water] Act either … The court’s zero- discharge standard does not consider whether there is an the requirements of ‘he Clean Air Act in ¢ hevron, 467 US. at SOS: ludges are not experts in the field, and are not part of

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC, Petitioner v. David Benham

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jun 19, 2018

Air Act Citizen Suits, 29 B.C. … Air Act Citizen Suits, 29 B.C.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Christopher Koteras, Petitioner v. Daniel Akers, Warden

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Nov 1, 2024

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000) (cleaned up). … Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 341-42 (2006)) (cleaned up).

Appendix — Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Braley

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2002

a | App. 6 CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 ef seg., and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 ef seg., and for state common law claims of nuisance … (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the App. 102 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seg., the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seg., and common law

Amicus Curiae Brief — Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton, 139 S. Ct. 914 (2019) (No. 18-389)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2019

ing and bathing facilities, meals, and cleaning services at no cost to employees. And when the hitch is over, the employee returns home to spend an equivalent number of days off. … [WC commissioners likewise limited their comments to “workers in the state of California.” Cal. Indus.

Appendix — Alcolac, Inc. v. Elam

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1989

] air. … A dilution ratio of 7 to 1 between the filtered and ambient air constitutes an "excessive emission" lan according to the standards of the federal Clean Air Act enforce Q, 24 by the DNR.© Ms.

Petitioners Brief — National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1974

Secretary of Transportation Volpe was asked by the Committee to comment on these proposed changes. … Several indicators of such progress are cited : ‘‘Ridership in the period May-November 1972 was 11% he higher than in the corresponding period of 1971.

Petition for Rehearing — Dora L. Adkins, Petitioner v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Rehearing · Apr 23, 2024

fan in fear that the air quality inside Guest Room #1558 was contaminated. … (In rare and extraordinary circumstances, the Court might entertain an untimely petition for rehearing, but you should not count on such an act of grace.)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Exxon Shipping Co. v. Cook

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1986

The evidence established that it was part of the shipyard’s normal procedures to clean the ship before the repair procedures began. … An air arc is a device which permits workers to cut a weld without cutting through the deck itself.

Respondents Brief — Environmental Protection Agency v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1980

In Union Electric, this Court held, inter alia, that when reviewing state implementation plans under the Clean Air Act, EPA may not consider the economic feasibility of the plan’s requirement since … Cir. 1973) (EPA has no affirmative duty to make a quantified cost-benefit analysis under the Clean Air Act but must consider such studies when submitted by companies), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921 (1974

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Buckingham Township v. Wykle

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2002

There is no private right of action under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act for the violation of the Act alleged by plaintiff. … Clean Air Act In counts VI and VII, plaintiff claims phat defendants failed to satisfy the conformity requirements of the CAA.”