Search for: "State of Wyoming v. EPA"
Results 21 - 40
of 73
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Oct 2015, 12:39 pm
District Court for the District of North Dakota, in State of Ohio, et al., v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 8:35 am
Wyo. filed Nov. 15, 2016), and State of Wyoming et al. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 10:58 am
EPA, which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 10:58 am
EPA, which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 10:58 am
EPA, which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 8:54 am
v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 am
Fifth Circuit United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 10:27 am
Summary of Decision issued March 5, 2010Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Powder River Basin Resource Council v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 9:14 am
North Dakota v. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 1:36 pm
EPA's proposal builds from regulations in place in states such as Colorado and Wyoming. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 6:22 pm
[1] Ohio in The State of Ohio v. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 5:18 am
United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989). [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 5:28 am
See American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 7:35 am
Ross, BP v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 7:35 am
The Supreme Court rebuked the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for applying an unduly expansive WOTUS definition (see SWANCC v. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 10:55 am
Brandt Revocable Trust v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 4:17 pm
Sealander and Erika Stocker of McDermott Will & Emery on the firm's blog, Health Care Law Reform Financial Times Reports That SEC Has Written At Least Dozen Companies About Their Business Dealings in Countries Deemed "State Sponsors" of Terror - Washington, DC attorney William McGrath of Porter Wright on the firm's Federal Securities Law Blog Louisiana Supreme Court Follows Wal-Mart v. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 11:43 am
While Texas currently has “primacy” (approval from the EPA for permitting and enforcement authority) over issuing permits for wells in Classes I-V, it does not yet have primacy for wells in Class VI, which means that final authorization still comes from the EPA. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 11:43 am
While Texas currently has “primacy” (approval from the EPA for permitting and enforcement authority) over issuing permits for wells in Classes I-V, it does not yet have primacy for wells in Class VI, which means that final authorization still comes from the EPA. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 11:43 am
While Texas currently has “primacy” (approval from the EPA for permitting and enforcement authority) over issuing permits for wells in Classes I-V, it does not yet have primacy for wells in Class VI, which means that final authorization still comes from the EPA. [read post]
