Search for: "CHEVRON CORP." Results 261 - 280 of 726
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2012, 11:56 am by Matthew Bush
GeorgiaDocket: 11-999Issue(s): Whether the Army Corps of Engineers must comply with the explicit statutory limit in the Water Supply Act of 1958 that requires Congressional approval before the Corps undertakes a major reallocation of federal reservoir storage to provide local water supply.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (11th Cir.) [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 12:00 am by Daniel Hamilton
Hernandez serves as a director for Chevron Corp., McDonald’s Corp., and Nordstrom, Inc., Mr. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 1:18 pm
The required safety document that Chevron Phillips filed with the U.S. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 4:01 pm by Dan Farber
  According to Greenwire, While some companies are supporting Proposition 23, Shell Oil Co. opposes it, Chevron Corp. is officially neutral, Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC have decided not to get involved and ConocoPhillips has yet to contribute. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:30 pm by Prof. Coplan, Karl S.
  By revising the existing decades-old regulatory definition of waters of the United States, EPA and the Corps are more likely to provide some clarity and certainty to the issue — a rulemaking will receive Chevron deference and will be upheld so long as it is a “permissible interpretation” of the Clean Water Act. [read post]
7 May 2010, 12:16 pm
 Plaintiff argued that Delaware law allows for the discovery of such materials; however, the Court noted that discovery of evidence pertaining to the corporations’ decision to refuse to pursue a lawsuit is generally not available, citing Scattered Corp. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 10:53 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Chevron Corp., 168 F.Supp.2d 1180 (D.Haw. 2001) Becker v. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 7:49 am
" see also Chrysler Corp. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2011), the Second Circuit held that Chevron was not estopped to raise claims against Ecuador in the BIT arbitration because of the stipulations Texaco made as a condition of obtaining a forum non conveniens dismissal in New York. [read post]