Search for: "STATE OF MICHIGAN v. EPA" Results 101 - 120 of 448
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Mar 2012, 1:55 pm by WIMS
(WIMS) Publishers of Michigan Waste Report, REGTrak, WIMS Daily & eNewsUSA E-Mail: info@ecobizport.com URL: http://www.ecobizport.com BLOG: http://enewsusa.blogspot.com/ [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 3:27 pm
  The EPA argues the Court previously upheld the NOx SIP Call in Michigan v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 1:39 pm by WIMS
EPA is compelled to do so by the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 1:33 pm by WIMS
On Petition for Review of a Final Action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 1:24 pm by WIMS
" In part, the majority said, " The Supreme Court's recent decision in Home Builders [National Association of Home Builders v. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 1:48 pm by WIMS
EPA filed an administrative complaint against Petitioner John P. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 1:52 pm by WIMS
 Instead, EPA will leave it up to state agencies to figure out requirements for plants, but decades of experience have shown that states lack the resources and expertise to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis and have complained to EPA of the extreme burden of having to do so. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 1:03 pm by Jason Shinn
But the bottom line is that Michigan employers cannot rely on employment agreements to shorten the statute of limitations provisions provided for in the FLSA and EPA. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 9:36 am
" The Appeals Court affirmed the decision and said, "There is no improper delegation to the EPA (compare United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 1:31 pm by WIMS
(WIMS) Publishers of Michigan Waste Report, REGTrak, WIMS Daily & eNewsUSA Jeff Dauphin, President 767 Kornoelje Dr. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm by Anthony B. Cavender
Supreme Court, on June 29, 2015, in a 5 to 4 ruling, held in Michigan v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 1:10 pm by WIMS
Specifically, EPA stated that it was acting pursuant to its authority under 5 U.S.C. [read post]