Search for: "Majors v. US Air, Inc." Results 21 - 40 of 729
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Sep 2012, 1:17 pm by WIMS
The Appeals Court summarizes its position saying, "The question before us is whether the Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action that the Act authorizes, displaces Kivalina's claims. [read post]
14 May 2014, 8:40 am by WIMS
The majority Panel ruled that TIAH was a pollutant and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 1:35 pm by WIMS
Otter Tail Power Co., 615 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2010); National Parks and Conservation Association Inc. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 8:08 am by brettb
Mazda Motor of America, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States took a major step in defining the limits of federal preemption. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 9:26 am
" In a split decision the majority rules that, "Even if the statements in the preamble were reviewable under the Clean Air Act, they are not ripe for review at this time. [read post]
18 Sep 2012, 1:46 pm by WIMS
[#Air, #Water, #Haz, #Toxics, #CA3]   GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)) and portions of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ADA regulations. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)) and portions of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ADA regulations. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)) and portions of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ADA regulations. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 8:19 am
EPA use of controversial cost-benefit analyses in the case of Entergy Corp. v. [read post]