category supreme-court 2006 Related Topics 
E2 Law Blog
MAY 26, 2023
Sometimes the most monumental Supreme Court decisions spring from the most modest facts. Thus began nearly two decades of litigation, culminating in the Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in Sackett v. The Court next examines state dredge and fill permitting authority under Section 404(g) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
CEQA Developments
MAY 2, 2023
On April 7, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal filed a lengthy published opinion – the latest installment in one of the longer ongoing CEQA battles in recent memory – affirming a judgment finding an EIR for the Federal relicensing of Oroville Dam and related hydropower facilities legally adequate. 5th 630 ( Butte I ). 791a et seq.).
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Law Columbia
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
A civil law breakthrough came in 2021, with the ruling of a Dutch court against Shell. In Smith v Fonterra , decided by New Zealand’s Supreme Court this week, we have perhaps the biggest common law breakthrough. In this most recent ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Law Columbia
JULY 6, 2017
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The court therefore found that the stay was unauthorized and vacated it. FEATURED CASE. A divided D.C. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS.
CEQA Developments
OCTOBER 21, 2021
In a 53-page published opinion filed October 8, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal mostly affirmed, but reversed in part, a judgment in a CEQA action challenging two sets of projects of the City of San Diego to underground overhead utility wires in several neighborhoods. The Court Of Appeal’s Opinion.
The Energy Law Blog
MAY 17, 2011
715 (2006). In SWANCC, the Supreme Court addressed the question of CWA jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate ponds, and concluded that CWA jurisdiction could not be based solely on the presence of migratory birds. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S.
The Energy Law Blog
JULY 6, 2007
2208 (2006). There is general agreement that Rapanos limited the reach of the CWA, but the Court did not articulate a clear standard for determining whether or not a wetland or body of water is covered by the CWA. 2208 (2006). Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States , 126 S. United States , 126 S.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content