Search for: "California v. United States Environmental Protection Agency" Results 361 - 380 of 556
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2013, 3:40 pm by Katrina Diaz
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed, and held that the amended complaint was too ambiguous as to which affirmative agency actions required EPA to consult about trifluralin before registering it. [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm by Roshonda Scipio
Lubbers.Chicago : American Bar Association, 2013.KF5401.A15 .D48 2012 Administrative Law A guide to federal agency adjudication / Jeffrey B. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 2:50 pm by Lyle Denniston
  At the opening of this Term, it granted review of United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 10:03 pm by Daniel B. Cohen
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis and recommendation to state and tribal health authorities for recreational water. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 1:26 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am by Abbott & Kindermann
These risks are highlighted by the California Supreme Court decision in Save Tara v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 1:32 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
1 May 2013, 10:53 am by Erik Beck
Environmental Protection Agency, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with leave to amend (pdf) a suit alleging that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service on the effects of 382 registered… [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 9:30 pm by Eric Lorber
Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Court examined whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reasonably interpreted its regulations when concluding that permits were not required under the Clean Water Act to discharge storm water runoff from logging operations. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 10:47 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The appellate court rejected this argument as well, saying nothing in the program EIR requirements compelled later environmental review and stated that the requirement for later environmental review would be a function of the thoroughness of the initial program document. [read post]