Documents

Amicus Curiae Brief — Wisconsin v. Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2002

E.g., Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387; Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j-26; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( … “RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k; Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari with Appendix — Binks Mfg. Co. v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari with Appendix · 1961

The combined license-lease arrangement was therefore jot illegal nor a ‘ F re SON ‘ misuse of patents under the Clayton Act. Cf. Linde Air Products Co, v. Graver Tank & Mfg. … tions 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. $1 and §2), and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A, $14).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, et al., Petitioners v. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Oct 22, 2024

Dep’t of Agric., 779 F.3d 258, 267 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up) (citations omitted); see also Nat’l Env’t Development Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 752 F.3d 999, 1008 (D.C. … Air. Regul. Grp. v.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Florida v. Riley

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1989

Cooking was commonly performed outside the house, as were laundering and other cleaning tasks. … The FAA has established, as it was Charged to do, those altitudes which accommodate interests in air travel with air safety and physical intrusiveness.

Opposition Brief — Sun Country Airlines, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1995

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as recodified, 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seg., empowers the FAA to pro- mote civil air safety by prescribing regulations “for the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen … On March 26, 1993, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking suggest- ing duty period scheduling limitations and rest requirements for flight attendants engaged in air transportation and air commerce

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Federal Election Commission v. Williams

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1997

In Walsh, the government brought an action for civil penalties and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 7413, the Clean Air Act. … The Clean Air Act gives the government the option of issuing administrative penalty orders or bringing a civil action. The government did the latter in Walsh.

Opposition Brief — Simpson Paper (Vermont) Co. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1993

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a proper exercise of state authority under § 401 of the Clean Water Act. 3. … I, Arts. 4, 7 and/or 9.... 25 Clean Water Act, Section 401, 33 U.S.C. §1341(a) . .1, 46 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341(d) .....------+++- 48 40 C.F.R. §131.3(b)......-. eee cece eee rece ener eres

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Wilson v. Johnson

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2003

Air, Inc.,2 and claims that the Navy did not act in good faith. 3. … (12) plaintiff has alleged various comments made by Wedel which suggested shedid not act in good faith. See Wilson dec! at 1.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gray v. Connecticut

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1992

and without comment on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. … The Connecticut Supreme Court acting as a reviewing court on appeal cannot find facts.

Transcript of Record — Jacobs v. Southern R. Co.

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1916

During that period had they been cleaning out ashpans and piling these cinders up during all that period of time? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the way section people did it, wasn’t it? A. … During that period had they been cleaning out ash-pans and piling these cinders up during all that period of time? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the way section people did it, wasn’t it? A.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Garcetti v. Ceballos

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2006

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (2005) .............ccccceesseeeees 24 ES. … § 5851 (Energy Reorganization Act) (2005); 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (Solid Waste Disposal Act) (2005); 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (Clean Air Act) (2005); and 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (Superfund) (2005).

Amicus Curiae Brief — City and County of San Francisco, California, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 3, 2024

Code Regs. § 4.05(5)(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 25 1972 Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1972 Clean Water Act § 301(b)(1)(C) . . . . . . . . . 15, 16, … SMALL BUSINESSES DEPEND ON CLEAN WAT ER , W H ICH IS S A FEGUA R DED BY NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS INCORPORATED INTO CLEAN WATER ACT PERMITS.

Appendix — City of New York v. United States Department of Transportation

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1984

; Sections 309 and 176 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.) ; Section 106 of the National His- toric Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470, herein- after “the Historic Preservation … ); Section 16 and 18(a) of the Airport and Air- way Develpoment Act of 1970 (49 USC 1716, 1718, here- inafter “the Airport Act”) ; and Section 14 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (49 USC

Petitioners Brief — New York Central R. Co. v. Marcone

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1930

He then started the bell which was rung continuously by compressed air. After the air compressor had been operated from 5 to 7 minutes, he blew three blasts of the whistle. … He waited until he got 50 pounds air pressure before moving the engine.

Reply Brief — John Paul Salvador, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Oct 14, 2024

. § 523(a) ................................................................. 5 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L. … The arguments on all sides have been fully aired over decades of litigation, and additional percolation will not benefit the Court’s consideration of this issue.

Petitioner for ReHearing — Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Petitioner for ReHearing · 1973

eral Act addressed itself to State recoveries of clean-up costs from the Federal Government. … See Robertson, Admiralty and Federal- ism, p. 136 (1970). 10 Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. v. City of Burbank, 318 F. Supp. 914, 921 et seq. (preemption), 926 et seg. (undue burden) (C.D.

Respondents Brief — Riverkeeper, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Jan 19, 2018

. §§ 1251–1388 et seq.), are commonly known as the Clean Water Act (the “Act”). … After providing an extended comment period and reviewing thousands of comments, EPA issued its final Rule in 2008. 73 Fed. Reg. 33,697.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Rapanos v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2006

The issue presented is whether or not the Army Corp of Engineers have jurisdiction over Petitioners’ property under the Clean Water Act. … Water and Air Act (herein CWA) and that they would have to apply for a permit to discharge fill into the “waters of the United States”.

Record and brief — The New Process Fermentation Company, Appellant, vs. Magdalena Maus, Albert C. Maus, Frank A. Maus and Mathias Maus

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 1886

wild” before drawing off into barrels and kegs, and also when the air -pump 1s used in forcing the beer from the cleaning-casks into smaller vessels, as the surplus air and gas will escape through … And those conditions are that the bung should be kept clean so as to act freely, are they not, and without stoppage ? A.

Reply Brief — Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014) (No. 14-46)

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2014

They buttress their analysis by claiming that, under Section 7412 and other Clean Air Act (“CAA”) provisions, costs are relevant only later in the regulatory process, when EPA sets standards. … Given that the initial three-year compliance period expires this April (with many units obtaining a one- year extension to next April), 77 Fed.