Search for: "SHARPE v. EPA "
Results 1 - 20
of 55
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2012, 5:35 am
Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 3:57 pm
EPA and Obergefell v. [read post]
21 Mar 2024, 7:54 am
In West Virginia v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 3:57 pm
EPA and Obergefell v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 1:20 pm
Moreover, in sharp distinction with cellulosic biofuel, there appears to be no great obstacle to the production of advanced biofuel generally; to the extent that estimates in the record are relatively low, that seems to be based on want of a market, which of course continued pressure will tend to solve." [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 1:25 pm
Circuit, Case No. 11-1302, EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 1:18 pm
Thus we do not see any sharp disconnect between the process given a citizen and the likely penalty that can be imposed under the CWA. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 12:42 am
EPA case. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 1:44 pm
S. 159 (2001); and Rapanos v. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 5:30 am
EPA claims the first version is the correct one.Prior to King v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 5:55 pm
The case, Sackett v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 8:54 am
When Justice Antonin Scalia was accused of making an “unprecedented” error in his EPA v. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 9:34 am
Supreme Court decision, Rapanos v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 12:22 pm
It is thus well settled, as Chief Justice Marshall explained in Wayman v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 5:54 am
By this time the case was called Chevron v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 6:56 am
The sharp debates generated by the Secretary’s extraordinary program stand in stark contrast to the unanimity with which Congress passed the HEROES Act. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 7:13 am
” In West Virginia v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 7:59 am
” New York v. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 1:27 pm
The principal issue presented is whether the EPA permitted them to do so. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 4:49 pm
Environmental Protection Agency is a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, which argued that such gases are not air pollutants under the meaning of the Clean Air Act. [read post]
