Documents

Petitioners Brief on the Merits — The Tungus v. Skovgaard

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief on the Merits · 1959

Blaney, testified that the pump’s air injection nipple had broken. … Justice Brennan commented upon | the point in Kernan v. American Drédging Co., 355 U.S.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2010

Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. … The Clean Water Act bans the “discharge of any pollutant” without a permit. 33 U.S.C. $§§ 1311, 1342(a)(1).

Petition — Coleman v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1979

In addition, the clean-up crew would clean up debris and garbage when citizens, including the Mayor, requested such work. … Time of Performance: This Agreement covers the period of May 1, 1975 to Sept. —, 19—. B8 C.

Jurisdictional Statement — Omni Farms, Inc. v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.

Supreme Court brief · Jurisdictional Statement · 1981

The invitation to comment shall advise said State agencies that comments must be received within sixty (60) days of the date of mailing or delivery thereof, unless an agency request [requests] for cause … a longer period for consideration.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1944

ATEMENT Jurtediction is invoked under Section 240 (a) of the - Judicial Code as amended by Act of February 13, 1925 (28 U: S. C. … ‘The productive periods were limited. to 24 and 36 hours, respectively, and were sepa- rated by unproductive ‘periods of equal lengths causéd by the hecessily of ‘shutting down to remove the accumulation

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.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Simkins Industries, Inc. v. Sierra Club

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1988

In calculating an ap- propriate civil penalty, the court observed that Simkins had failed to file DMRs during the 977-day period set forth in the Sierra Club’s complaint and that the Clean Water Act … + The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act’s civil penal- ty provisions to increase the maximum penalty to $25,000 per day.

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).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — INDIANA WATER QUALITY COALITION v. Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2006

a final guidance document pursuant to section | 18(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act (the “GL Guidance”). … The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- ments of 1972 (Clean Water Act or CWA), Pub. L.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Whitcomb v. Sanitary Commission of Anne Arundel County

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1970

The right to breathe clean air, to have a recreation upon the Bay which does not stink, which has fish and game and recreational uses; this is not a property right, entirely. … personal rights to hold property, or sell property, or vote, as distinguished from the case in which everybody should be interested in having as clean a Bay and ag clean an air as (10) we can get.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bridgeport v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1985

Force Base in Cali- fornia to Yakota Air Force Base in Japan. … Perry, 512 F.2d 805, 807 (6th Cir., 1975), just the act of the U.S.

Joint Appendix — James Erin McKinney, Petitioner v. Arizona

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · Aug 21, 2019

As far as I know, it was clean. He kept it neat. He was very neat. He, himself, was. 98 Q. You stated, and I made the comment on my notes, that “they ran away constantly.” … You mentioned a report that you’d rather not comment on at this time, I believe your words were? A Oh, it’s not that I didn’t want to comment on it.

Memorandum for Respondent — Steiner v. Mitchell

Supreme Court brief · Memorandum for Respondent · 1956

Act? … Some are spilled or dropped and thus become a part of the dust in the air (R. 27, 71, 108, 117, 154).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bruce A. Norvell, Petitioner v. Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Dec 11, 2020

The Clean Air Act at 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1) provides that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollu­ tant from … If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the Agency to regulate emissions. Id., at 1462. (Emphasis supplied).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Burdick v. Pritchett & Birch, PLLC

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2010

Without firm does not believe the corrupt Family Court judges and immoral lawyers who manipulate them, will clean up their act.. … Plaintiff has not even been allowed to speak, present evidence, or comment, on reicvant issues before their Courts, even when acting pro se as his own attormey.

Supplemental Appendix — McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Supreme Court brief · Supplemental Appendix · 2003

The NRA could also show a periodical with a different cover and air the advertisement whenever it liked. … Goldstein comments that Dr.

Transcript of Record — United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1942

(A demonstration was then made. ) Perfectly clean, lar. … The ‘micro-pulverizers are cfeaned period- ically and hard particles of grit which had not been pushed the side of the micro-pulverizer are cleaned out.\ They are cleaned periodically in order to make

Reply Brief — New Jersey v. New York City

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1935

My conclusion is that the Act of 1888, as amended, fur- nishes no defense to the defendant, and that compliance with permits from the Supervisor of the Harbor acting under the provisions of that Act … From the evidence the pollution of the air and the magnitade of that pollution are not open to dispute.’’ In Mugler v.

Respondents Brief — Nevada Irrigation District, et al., Petitioners v. California State Water Resources Control Board, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Apr 10, 2023

Section 1341(a)(1) provides that if a state “fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, … EPA, which has rulemaking authority under the Clean Water Act, promulgated a rule in 2020 addressing the determination of the “reasonable period of time” for acting on a certification request under § 1341

Opposition Brief — Shultz v. Cooper

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1986

Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clear Air, No. 85-5 (July 2, 1986) ................ 2,4 Statute and rule: Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(k), 42 U.S.C. … Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, No. 85-5 (July 2, 1986).