Documents

Amicus Curiae Brief — RCK Properties, Inc. v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 373 (1999) (No. 99-286)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1999

Fee, Comment, Unearthing the Denominator in Regulatory Takings, 61 U. Cui. L. REv. 1535 (1994). … The Court of Appeals found that Forest Properties’ investment-backed expectations were not reasonable because the Army Corps’ Clean Water Act regulations were in effect when Forest Properties purchased

Reply Brief — Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1997

Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950), or other precedents. … The same wit- ness, however, when asked if it was the machine that was shut down for cleaning (filled with cleaning solution rather than dye) that had a pH of 6, acknowledged: “Could have been.”

Petitioners Brief — United States, et al., Petitioners v. Texas, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · Sep 12, 2022

, ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570 .................................... 13 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ................................... 23 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ....... … Second, Massachusetts attached “critical importance” to the State’s “procedural right” under the Clean Air Act to challenge the denial of a petition for rulemaking on emissions standards. 549 U.S. at 516

Petitioners Reply Brief — Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee

Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Reply Brief · 1973

will be put on the air” (App. … air.

Opposition Brief — United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Poland Spring Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2003

acts — although literally disobedience — do not.” … acts — although literally disobedience — do not.”

Amicus Curiae Brief — Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Alaska Conservation Council (No. 07-990)

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2009

and Alaska Forest Association (n49AD hb 1 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. … United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), involving the administration of the Clean Water Act.

Petition — Duckworth v. Adams

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1979

Plaintiff’s second allegation deals with physical condi- tions of the cells, cleaning procedures and maintenance. … Due process requires periodic review of the situation of persons in segregation. Kelley v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 394 (8th Cir., 1975).

Reply Brief — Center for Biological Diversity, et al., Petitioners v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Jun 4, 2020

American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (delegated authority to set air pollutant standards implicating only the Clean Air Act, based on technical criteria, rulemaking processes, and subject … United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) (delegated authority to designate controlled substances within the Controlled Substances Act, informed by numerous criteria, intraagency consultation, public comment,

Reply Brief — RMS of Georgia, LLC, dba Choice Refrigerants, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Jun 2, 2026

Circuit instead plucked that requirement from Title VI of the Clean Air Act—an entirely different statutory scheme—and grafted it onto the AIM Act, in a transparent attempt to avoid the glaring nondelegation … , not [] an 9 amendment to the Clean Air Act.”

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jeffrey W. Young, Jr., Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jan 23, 2026

did not promulgate a regulation making that determination in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, Cain was not subject to SORNA's requirements during the period indicated in the indictment … Recently, The Court considered whether the EPA had authority to regulate certain pollutants from existing sources under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411.

Appendix — Dowell v. Beech Acceptance Corp.

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1971

-(U.C.C. , Comment to §9-307.)1 | eo is The trial court adverted to the fact that even a "clean" report on a particular 55 The judgment pore ‘therefore -be affirmed as far as ‘the principal issue … “(See Uniform Commercial Code Comment 2, Com. Code, §9307.

Opposition Brief — Volkema v. Michigan

Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1998

. - -vii- Statutes Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et SG.......cccccessesseseeeeenes 7 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344... cccccccccscsceeseeeneeees 13 Executive Reorganization Order 1995-18, … In addition to these cases, and of particular relevance to the underlying case, are a series of takings cases based on actions taken by the federal government under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board v. Department of Transportation

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2000

Garza, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) order was not a substantive rule subject to notice and comment period under Administrative Procedure Act (APA); (2) DOT was not required to grant preclusive effect … It grounds that charge on, among other things, our original decision to give parties two weeks to file comments. As Fort Worth well knows, we later doubled the comment period by Order 98-9-5.

Petition — Spannaus v. Goldschmidt

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1980

Borden Co., ee Cee A oe, ee ee oes Federal Statutes: cat RRR a ee ice won ere ora _ tt NI ERNE te ears a une EE AIRE Seagiian ce SPER TI tot a SRR ROR CE I MEI ick eg Aken ne nae UN MN sa Ed a EP … . §§ 470-470t (1976), and of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-642 (1976).

Appendix — Land Air Delivery, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1989

Land Air, erroneously stating that the inquiry involved inatters relating to 2 pending case before the Board,' de- clined to comment on the inquiry. On June 22, the union went back on strike. … Air is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.

Reply Brief — Springwell Navigation Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2004

The questions presented by Springwell’s petition each raise clean issues of law that are ripe for this Court’s resolu- tion and this case is an excellent vehicle for addressing those issues. … -Liberian treaty’s court-access provi- sion is subject to “local laws” such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does nothing to support the decision below.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Donald J. Trump, Applicant v. New York, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 9, 2025

Id. at 247 (cleaned up). … (cleaned up).

Appendix — Rostker v. Goldberg

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1981

Additional comments are in Ap- pendix E. … Comments and recommendations: a.

Appendix — RICHARD D. LAMM v. FIDEL RAMOS (Nos. 80-1340, 80-1329)

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1981

The lack of adequate ventilation causes stagnant air with foul odors; the continued presence of con- taminants in the air; a lack of adequate displacement of body heat; personal discomfort; health and … A number of other themes have been presented by the defendants which require some comment.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jonathan Dean Davis, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Mar 27, 2023

Davis had been working in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) industry since he was 18 years old. … App. 13 Id. at 708–09 (cleaned up). As Evans shows, because $3.2 million exceeds $366,000 in clean money, Davis’s conviction stands.