Search for: "Freshwater v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 101
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Aug 2016, 12:18 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. [read post]
JarvisNew York StateNew York State freshwater wetlands mapping [microform] : technical methods statement : prepared pursuant to article 24 of the Environmental Conservation LawPeace ParksPeace parks for mountain forests : the law and policy of transforming conflict to stewardship / by Elaine C. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am by Abbott & Kindermann
(2) Does the ICCTA preempt a state agency’s voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition of receiving state funds for a state owned rail line and/or leasing state-owned property? [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 11:44 am by Jack McNeill, Associate Library Director
Application of the remedial purpose canon to CERCLA successor liability issues after United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2022, 9:03 pm by Sam Wong
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Virginia v. [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 2:11 pm by Barbara Moreno
Mary Ziegler, Abortion and the Law in America:  Roe v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 8:45 am by Zack Bluestone, Chris Mirasola
Taiwanese authorities highlighted the fact that the maritime feature has self-sustaining freshwater reserves and can independently support both human habitation and economic life—references to the criteria for an island established under UNCLOS. [read post]
19 May 2010, 5:00 am by Ted Tjaden
Michel-Adrien Sheppard also posted here on SLAW in 2007 about the Globalex Research Guide on Transboundary Freshwater Treaties and Other Resources.] [read post]
Here, Professor Buzz Thompson, a global expert on water and natural resources who has served as Special Master for the United States Supreme Court in Montana v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]