Search for: "State v. General Chemical Corp." Results 481 - 500 of 522
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2023, 4:38 am by SHG
It is extremely difficult to square the state bar’s version with what the prosecutor said, as recounted in Miller v Pate. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:37 pm by Steven M. Taber
– EPA News Release, July 14, 2010 Twenty-six parties have agreed to help clean up the Great Lakes Container Corp. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 7:04 am by Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch
“What you're seeing is once states get down to the brass tacks of the doing it, it's not as traumatic as it could be,” she said.Don Neal, vice president of environment, health, and safety for Calpine Corp., told BNA that the PSD permits issued for other regulated pollutants often included provisions limiting the amount of fuel that could be burned in a year as part of their required pollution controls.Regulators have been able to convert that restriction into… [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am by admin
“It is critical that the state not offer carbon credits for business-as-usual management by timber companies or, worse, encourage clearcutting and other destructive logging practices while doing nothing to address the immediate impacts of climate change. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm by admin
was of course correct on this limited point, but generally in this field, peer review is worth a warm bucket of spit. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 1:21 pm by Asbestos Legal Center
Grace Fireproofing-vermiculite etc… 26% Primarily Fireproofiting sites Western Asbestos Trust Various Insulation Supply/Contracting 51.1% Most Valuable Trust in the Country – Nationwide -Must file claims w/in 1 year of Date of Death unless exceptions State Insulation Corp Asbestos P.I. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 12:12 pm by Stephen Jenei
Pre-existing commercial activity, whether known or unknown, is generally excluded from coverage under the enforcement policy. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am by Ben
In the UK in FAPL v BT [2017] Mr Justice Arnold concluded that the High Court has the jurisdiction to make an order against an access provider that would require the ISP to block access not to a website but rather streaming servers giving unauthorised access to copyright content - 'live' blocking. [read post]