Documents

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lillie Leon, Petitioner v. New York City Department of Education, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jan 29, 2019

its classrooms are not air conditioned. … (citing Restoration Act § 1; Hernandez v. Kaisman, 103 A.D.3d 106 (1st Dep't 2012)).

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

Opposition — Board of Supervisors v. Coleman

Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1976

reading of the history of the Noise Control Act in- dicates that Senator Tunney’s remarks were an apparent attempt to make law via ‘‘legislative history’’ shortly after the substance of his comment … Finally, the petitioners’ comment that they ‘‘are without redress”? in regard to the absence of an SST noise rule is fallacious.

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).

Appendix — New Jersey Chamber of Commerce v. Hughey

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1989

comment period, OSHA published the final Hazard Communication Standard on November 25, 1983 (48 FR 53280). … See, also comments of the Air Transport Association, H-022, Ex. 5-3 (“[T]he airlines have no general objection to the [NIOSH] Criteria .. .

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.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Casaceli v. Cheramie Bo Truc 11, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1986

and not have to drag his air hose over debris. … If Transocean had keep its slip clean, the Bo-Truc could have entered the slip without difficulty and it would never have been necessary to request divers to perform repair work.

Appendix — Baker v. Federal Aviation Administration

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1991

Public Comment In an effort to implement the court’s directive, the com- ment period was reopened for 30 days on October 19, 1988 (53 FR 41147), and comments were invited specifically on the age versus … , the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen, and other employ- ees, of air carriers

Opposition Brief — Albertson's, Inc. v. Commissioner

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1995

: 16 Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. … The court pointed out that petitioner’s HVAC systems “play[ed] an important role in ventilating its supermarkets,” thus keeping them clean, pleasant, and safe. Jd. at 38a-39a.

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.

Joint Appendix — United States v. Locke

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · 1999

Comments on editorial corrections 5. … In addition to clean-up costs and economic loss, OPA 90 allows claims for non- economic environmental damage but the basis for such claims is not specified in the Act.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bolkcom v. Carborundum Co.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1976

I certainly must apologize for the form of some of those comments. … “He didn’t pre- pare the applications involved” period.

Application — United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., Applicants v. Northern Plains Resource Council, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Application · Jun 15, 2020

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any “pollutant” into “navigable waters” without a permit. 1311(a), 1362(12). 33 U.S.C. … The Clean Water Act authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Corps, to issue permits for the discharge of such “dredged or fill material.” 33 U.S.C. 1344(a) and (d).

Amicus Curiae Brief — Clayvin Herrera, Petitioner v. Wyoming

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Nov 20, 2018

XCVII (“The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection … I, § 27 (“The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.

Opposition Brief — Esab Group, Inc. v. Centricut LLC

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2005

Electrodes are “consumables”; i.e., they wear out with use and must be replaced periodically. A944-45. … the science relating to work function, he testified that he had never used work function as a criterion for designing an electrode, emissive insert, holder, or any other electrode-component for an air

Reply Brief — Bragdon v. Abbott

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1998

~ - with Terminal Illnesses Act,” or the “Americans with HIV Act,” but it did not. … Some body systems (e.g., skin, cardiovascular) have no corresponding major life 30 ADA Comment Books #1 and #2 for Public Inspection (comments 100-1299).

Reply Brief — Arkansas v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1992

Although respondents and their amici repeatedly invoke the “goals” of the Clean Water Act, neither those goals nor the statute as a whole can support their interpreta- tion of the Act. … Air Act.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Brower v. Washington

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1999

Many commentators have noted the power of private wealth to shape the nature and outcome of elections. … CLEAN, 130 Wn.2d at 803-12. Mr. Brower’s argument is not persuasive in light of CLEAN.

Motion for divided argument — United States Steel Corporation, Applicant v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Motion for divided argument · Jan 10, 2024

And, because the challenged rule upended the system of cooperative-federalism that Congress enshrined in the Clean Air Act, the State Applicants seek a stay to prevent any further injury to the States’ … sovereign authority to regulate air quality within their borders. 1 The Industry Applicants include businesses in industries critical to the nation’s power generation, manufacturing, and defense.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2000

No. 228, 101st Cong., Ist Sess. 373 (1989) "[t]he assessment of civil penalties for violations of the [Clean Air] Act [is] necessary for 16 deterrence, restitution and retribution").2 Thus, where … long period of time avoids any penalty for its violations.