Documents

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Patterson v. District of Columbia

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1997

Ct. 2638, 2641 (1992) (Safe Water Drinking Act and the Clean Water Act fee provisions are “similar to that of many other federal fee-shifting statutes,” including 42 U.S.C. § 1988; “case law construing … Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560 (1986) (§ 1988 and fee shifting provision of the Clean Air Act to be interpreted similarly).

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Barry J. Cadden, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jan 26, 2023

The motion at issue related to environmental monitoring data that NECC collected *23 from its clean rooms during the period that the contaminated lots of MPA were produced. … [and] the appearance of mold and other contaminants in the clean room.”

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Indian Towing Co. v. United States (No. 195)

Supreme Court brief · Petition for a Writ of Certiorari · 1960

The literal accept- ance of this finding is of no-solace to the respondent for it clearly indicates the necessity for periodic cleaning and adjustment of the contact points. … But this is not to say that the failure of the contact points could not be avoided by periodic examination, for if the points were chécked periodically they would be cleaned periodi- cally if and when

Amicus Brief — Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1981

The numerous regulations (e.g., Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control Act) provide ample federal control over how surface mining is conducted while stil] protect- ing the environment. … However, the states have no choice but to adopt the federal standards as their own or else hand over total control of surface coal mining to the federal government.4 While the Clean Air Act and the

Motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance — Oklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance · Jan 24, 2025

When a petitioner seeks review of a “final action” taken by the EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Section 7607(b)(1) of Title 42 authorizes direct court of appeals review of the … HARRIS Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record JANUARY 2025

Respondents Brief — Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 2000

are private parties who brought a citizen suit under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”). … To find otherwise would allow the provisions of the Clean Water Act to trump Article III principles.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Cramer v. Pena

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1993

Section 29 of the International Air Transportation Com petition Act of 1979, Pub.L. … We received comments and reply comments from: Air Midwest, America West Airlines, Continental Air Lines, the Dallas/Fort Worth Parties, Delta Air Lines, the Department of Justice, the Regional Airline

Appendix — Deja Vu of of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of of Nashville (No. 06-1078)

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2006

Some of those items were: Repair hand sink; clean walls and all air condition- ing vents; clean storage areas; provide hand towels. … SCHAFFNER: ... report, which includes a need for repairing hand sink for the ease of cleaning; thoroughly cleaning the walls in booths and air condition- ing vents in the hall; providing a minimum of

Amicus Brief — Agins v. City of Tiburon

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1980

Water Act § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1842), safe drinking water controls (Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1421), air emis- 7 sion controls (Clean Air Act § 110(a) (2), 42 U.S.C … Consider the range of consequences such a disruption would involve: How would the air rights over a site be measured?

Amicus Curiae Brief — King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 475 (2014) (No. 14-114)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2014

The Court has thus rebuffed EPA when it relied on decades-old provisions of the Clean Air Act to assert “[t]he power to require permits for the construction and modification of tens of thousands, and … Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the Court extended Chevron deference to a Clean Water Act regulation jointly issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. 557

Amicus Curiae Brief — Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 8, 2024

comments prompt the private actor to take the offending conduct. … The communications at issue are far more sustained than a 16 mere passing comment or a series of public statements. C.A.

Reply Brief — Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff, et al., Petitioners v. Christopher Garnier, et ux.

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Dec 20, 2022

Freed, 37 F.4th 1199, 1206 (6th Cir. 2022)) (cleaned up). … BIO 15 (cleaned up).

Amicus Curiae Brief — Michael Sackett, et ux., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 14, 2022

The Clean Water Act defines “navigable waters” simply as “waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). … The Biden Administration has since announced yet another new definition, for which the comment period ended February 7, 2022. See 86 Fed. Reg. 69,372.

Reply Brief — Sharon Steel Corp. v. City of Fairmont

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1986

Air Act or any Federal law, or (ili) prohibits the use of such substance or mixture in such State or political subdivision (other than its use in the manufacture or processing of other substances … If the EPA has not acted, the States are free to act. If the EPA has acted, then the States must appiy for an exemption from the preemption.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robinson v. Secretary of Transportation

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1987

This comment created an inference that Robinson was destined for failure as an air traffic controller. (T.R. Vol. I, p. 52). … Robinson that the only black who became an air traffic controller during this period of time in the north sector was Smith.

Opposition Brief — W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States (No. 05-1363)

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2006

That Act “grants the President broad power to command government agencies and private parties to clean up hazardous waste sites.” Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 814 (1994). … CERCLA provides the President, acting primarily through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with several alternatives for cleaning up sites contami- nated with hazardous substances.’

Appendix — Porter v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1999

SAE EN birt SE ME RR ces SD The Air Board must act on an offiwer's petition for correction. … The comments on the contested LOE are similar to the comments on the contested OER closing 2 January 1984 which the Board found to be in error.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Diaz v. Department of the Air Force

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1996

On Sa Appendix B April 16, 1993, the Air Force gave Diaz another notice that his performance was unacceptable and initiated a second performance improvement period. … Diaz argues that his removal was invalid because the Air Force’s decision removing Diaz was issued more than 30 days after Diaz’s notice period expired.

Brief for the United States — Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. v. Pakoototas (No. 06-1188)

Supreme Court brief · Brief for the United States · 2006

As this Court explained in construing the Clean Water Act’s similar citizen-suit provision, “(t]he most natural reading of ‘to be in violation’ is a requirement that citizen-plaintiffs allege a state … Like the Clean Water Act’s analogous notice requirement, that provision would be “incomprehensi- ble” if citizens could sue based on past violations, be- cause “the purpose of notice to the alleged

Appellants Reply Brief — Watson v. Buck

Supreme Court brief · Appellants Reply Brief · 1941

(Ex syste Tome. 209 U. 8. 123. 1 * eh a eee — — —— ——ͤ—ͤ1 r ˙ m 57 ee oon al Reed 2 2 RE ———ů 1v SE Re ae BOE em TT — * PC 4 COMMENTS. … , entitled “An Act to Pro- tect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Kestraints and Monopolies.” | And 20, the United States Attorney accuses aiid says: That the defendants throughout the Period aforesaid