Search for: "United States District Court for the District of Montana" Results 61 - 80 of 729
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2015, 1:31 pm by Joe Koncelik
Two other District Court's ruled that district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to EPA’s rule defining waters of the United States because courts of appeal have original jurisdiction over “any effluent limitation or other limitation" citing § 509(b)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 1:34 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 1:15 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 9:26 am
Today's DJ has Republicans Bundle New Judgeships, 9th Circuit Breakup Plan in One Bill: United States federal courts need new bench officers, some districts desperately. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 9:14 am by James Rusk and Keith Garner
  The court’s ruling comes one day before the new rule, which redefines “waters of the United States,” was set to take effect. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 11:06 am by Rick Hasen
  (Here‘s the 2d Circuit on that opinion: The Court is aware of United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:25 pm by Jordan D. Maglich
 Reynolds had been charged with twenty felonies in Gallatin County District Court after a former employee alerted authorities due to concerns over the legitimacy of his operation. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 2:39 pm by Joseph Koncelik
 16-299 that district courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to any rule that attempts to define "Waters of the United States" for purposes of determining the scope of coverage of the Clean Water Act. [read post]
23 May 2012, 12:14 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Twenty-two states along with the District of Columbia line up behind this argument. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:27 pm by Paul Weiland
The United States District Court for the District of Montana issued a decision (PDF) on July 27, 2010, in which it held that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when those agencies issued an Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and biological opinions for the use of chemical… [read post]