Search for: ""Rapanos v. United States" OR "547 U.S. 715"" Results 21 - 40 of 51
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Apr 2009, 9:21 am
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), but there has never been any direct challenge to the exercise of jurisdiction before the Corps in this case, and the existence of the Corps' jurisdiction is not disputed before this court. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 9:14 am by James Rusk and Keith Garner
United States, 547 U.S. 715, because the rule’s broad definition of “tributary” asserts jurisdiction over “vast numbers of waters” that are unlikely to have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters as required by Rapanos. [read post]
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), ephemeral streams and many wetlands require a fact-specific “significant nexus” analysis by the U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:51 am by Walter James
United States, 547 U.S. 715, 729 (2006) which wrestled with the scope of federal jurisdiction over non-navigable waters. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 10:21 am by Liskow & Lewis
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), the scope of regulatory jurisdiction in the proposed rule is narrower than under the existing regulations. [read post]
15 Sep 2019, 12:28 pm by Stuart Kaplow
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) decision were clear the agencies exceeded their authority but split on how this was to be accomplished. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 8:28 am by John Elwood
United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), but the Court denied cert. [read post]