Documents

Respondents Brief — Davis v. Green

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1922

During that period we enjoyed a camp and we kept our extra equipment here for emergencies which would arise from time to time. Q. … The Petitioner Pleaded Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Burden was on It to Prove Act Applied. No Such Proof was Made, Therefore Act Does Not Apply.

Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Grants Pass, Oregon, Petitioner v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Mar 4, 2024

Open-air drug markets, common in encampments, also alienate potential customers and exasperate business owners. … And outreach teams from Seattle have attempted to address the “open-air drug market” in a local homeless encampment.

Petition — Block v. Rutherford

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1984

Methods B and D are so unsatisfactory and expensive that no further comment con- _ cerning them is indicated. … Ga. 1976) (laundry twice a week; clean uniform three times per week).

Joint Appendix — Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Nebraska, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · Jan 4, 2023

Cir. 2005) (If the agency “effects a substantive change in the regulation, notice and comment are required.” (cleaned up)). 71. … First, they argue that Plaintiffs could not have suffered a procedural deprivation based on the lack of a notice-and-comment period because the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment

Joint Appendix — Department of Education, et al., Petitioners v. Myra Brown, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · Jan 4, 2023

Cir. 2005) (If the agency “effects a substantive change in the regulation, notice and comment are required.” (cleaned up)). 71. … First, they argue that Plaintiffs could not have suffered a procedural deprivation based on the lack of a notice-and-comment period because the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment

Appendix — Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Del Raso

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1968

The work was performed in the open air, and over a period of 44 years no workmen except plaintiffs had contracted lead poisoning. … Criche used kerosene and oil to _ clean his hands, but he never washed himself at work.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Roddie Melvin, Petitioner v. Federal Express Corporation

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Feb 8, 2021

(cleaned up). … (cleaned up).

Respondents Brief — National Ass'n v. Defenders of Wildlife

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 2007

Whether EPA must comply with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act when EPA authorizes States to administer the Clean Water Act permitting program, where Section 7(a)(2)’s requirements apply … See, e.g., Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am.

Joint Appendix — Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC

Supreme Court brief · Joint Appendix · 1997

Third, the validity of this approach is supported by studies, conducted during the “non-must carry” period prior to the 1992 Cable Act, to assess the competitive impact of over-the-air television stations … Meek has identified 31 commercial television stations that purportedly left the air for some time dur- ing the period in dispute. See Meek Decl., 474 and Exh.

Record and brief — Falls Stamping & Welding Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 1982

Union comments were then made about the testimony of Company rebuttal witnesses. Carol Trego was attacked for unfounded allegations of impropriety toward one employee. … The Union bases its case on the “clean hands doctrine” in the Company treatment of employees by Supervisors, acquiesced in by Management, over a long period led to their dissatisfaction with Union officers

Petition — Marine Development Corp. v. Heiman

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1976

Prosser, The Law of Torts 649 (4th ed. 1971); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, comment k; see Kerber v. … systems were operated together for an extended period of time while the boat was stationary.

Respondents Brief — Environmental Protection Agency v. Defenders of Wildlife

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 2007

Whether the court of appeals correctly held that EPA's decision to transfer permitting authority to Arizona under Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act was arbitrary and capricious because it was based … See, e.g., Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am.

Opposition Brief — Wagner Seed Co. v. Bush

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1992

Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 RAR AIR eRe 8 Tir Ae LLL Sit inn ASN NR Oe 15 Constitution, statutes and rule: U.S. … Okla- homa, supra (requiring Chevron deference to EPA’s interpretation of provisions relevant to its issuance of a permit under the Clean Water Act). b.

Transcript of Record — Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1912

Have not acted in haste. T have conferred very seriously with my partner, Mr. … Those which we can fix up in the cleaning room, but the others are discounted unless they are broken in’ the cleaning and at some place in the cleaning room. Q.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Scott Timber Co., et al., Petitioners v. Oregon Wild, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 19, 2018

Water Act. … Indeed, violations of the Clean Water Act can include criminal penalties as well as fines up to $37,500 for each day a party is in violation of the Act. See id.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Trevor Jim Bishop, Petitioner v. California

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Dec 15, 2021

Appellant went back to the car to clean up the vomit in the car. Appellant spent 10 or 15 minutes cleaning. When he finished and went inside, Jimmy was not back. … Walter had testified that the size of the hematoma would suggest either a rapid bleed over a short period or a very small bleed over a longer period.

Amicus Curiae Brief — U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 615 (2015) (No. 15-290)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2015

NAHB has been involved with litigation concerning whether Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations are reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. … The Clean Water Act is a federal law that protects the wetlands of the United States.

Appendix — Public Utilities Commission v. Federal Express Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1992

Among the proposals being considered by the District are peak period fee assessment, traffic diversion, requiring Carriers to retrofit equipment with engines which burn clean fuel, and outright bans … Otherwise a public hearing is held, with the ensuing decision subject to Commission rules on a 30-day comment period.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Infelise v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2000

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). … Legal also recalls Bell- avia and DeLaurentis also making similar comments.

Transcript of Record — Wilson v. Civil Aeronautics Board (No. 434)

Supreme Court brief · Transcript of Record · 1957

Research by counsel into the legislative history of the Civil | Aeronautics Act of 1938 -has failed to disclose any significant comment | either in the Committee Reports or the Hearings which might … testimony merit comment. Thus, the Examiner in accepting the testi- ‘mony. of Andrews, commented specif ically and .in-favorable terms upon Andrews' demeanor and manner of testifying.