Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean environment or resource and conservation or EPA?

Your query environment or (resource and conservation) or EPA returned 56 results.

	CITY OF CHICAGO V. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 114 S. CT. 1588, 128 L. ED., 511 U.S. 328 (1994) [Syllabus]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Syllabus]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Dissent]
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Opinion]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Opinion]
	KEY TRONIC CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY V. WASHINGTON DEP'T OF ECOLOGY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) [Syllabus]
	MORRISON V. OLSON [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	HICKLIN V. ORBECK [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Opinion]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN [Dissent]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR V. MORTIER, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NOLLAN V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	TRAIN V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	MINNESOTA V. CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY CO. [Syllabus]
	SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC. [Opinion]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
	INS V. CHADHA [Opinion]
	CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	CLARK V. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NONVIOLENCE [Opinion]
	PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	CITY OF CHICAGO V. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 114 S. CT. 1588, 128 L. ED., 511 U.S. 328 (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY V. OHIO, 503 U.S. 607 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA [Syllabus] Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
	MEGHRIG ET AL. V. KFC WESTERN, INC., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERSOF WILDLIFE [Syllabus]
	WHITMAN V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409, as interpreted by the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) in setting revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 2. Whether the court of appeals exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing, as a final agency action that is ripe for review, EPA's preliminary preamble statements on the scope of the agency's authority to implement the revised ""eight-hour"" ozone NAAQS. 3. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifically aimed at achieving the long delayed attainment of the then-existing ozone NAAQS restrict EPA's general authority under other provisions of the CAA to implement a new and more protective ozone NAAQS until the prior standard is attained."
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES V.UNITED STATES EX REL. STEVENS [Syllabus] 1. Whether a State is a ""person"" subject to liability under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a) of the False Claims Act? 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment precludes a private relator from commencing and prosecuting a False Claims Act suit against an unconsenting State?
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	HARRIS V. FORKLIFT SYS., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE V. DUKE ENERGY CORP. [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	KEY TRONIC CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 809 (1994). [Syllabus]
	PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY V. WASHINGTON DEP'T OF ECOLOGY, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V. PUBLICCITIZEN [Syllabus] Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
	WISCONSIN PUBLIC INTERVENOR V. MORTIER, 501 U.S. 597 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. [Syllabus] Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
	FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP. V. GOTTSHALL, 114 S. CT. 2396, 129 L. ED. 2D 427 (1994) [Syllabus]
	FARMER V. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES [Syllabus]
	ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP. [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
	BENNETT V. SPEAR, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). [Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	AGOSTINI V. FELTON, 117 S.CT. 1997, 138 L.ED.2D 391 (1997). [Syllabus]
	MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCINGSOUTHEAST, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding-contrary to decisions of this Court, other courts of appeals, and state courts, as well as the Restatements and leading treatises-that petitioner could not receive restitution of the $78 million paid to the United States for oil and gas leases following the enactment of a statute, which the trial court found ""clearly reduce(d) the value and materially alter(ed) the structure and framework"" of those leases, because (1) petitioner had not proved that this material breach of its leases caused it any injury and (2) Congress repealed the statute after petitioner filed suit asserting material breach?"
	PORTER V. NUSSLE [Syllabus] The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	LEE V. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LOCKE [Syllabus] Whether regulations adopted by the State of Washington governing staffing and operation of oceangoing oil tankers engaged in coastal and international commerce are preempted to the extent that they conflict with international obligations of the United States and Coast Guard regulations for such tankers promulgated pursuant to federal statutes and international conventions and agreements.
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	C & A CARBONE, INC. V. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, N.Y., 114 S. CT. 1677, 128 L. [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COTTON [Syllabus] A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
	NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE [Syllabus]
	VERIZON MD. INC. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM’N OF MD. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1331 provides a basis for federal-court jurisdiction over a telecommunication carrier's claim that a state public utility commission's order requiring reciprocal compensation for telephone calls to Internet service providers is pre-empted by federal law; the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, permits the suit to go forward against the state commissioners in their official capacities.
	ZOBREST V. CATALINA FOOTHILLS SCH. DIST., 509 U.S. 1 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SINOCHEM INT L CO. V. MALAYSIA INT L SHIPPINGCORP. [Syllabus]