Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart
Free Instant Delivery  |  No Sales Tax
Home > Case Law > Environmental Law  >  Michigan v. EPA
Michigan v. EPA
Michigan v. EPA Cartoons

Michigan v. EPA

The EPA may consider both the health effects of pollution and the cost of abating it when determining whether a state SIP fails to comply with the Clean Air Act. One state cannot pollute a downwind state.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc.
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc.
CERCLA authorizes contribution for environmental cleanup costs from other responsible parties only when the party seeking contribution has been sued under CERCLA 106 or 107(a). CERCLA liability; CERCLA contribution action.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA authority under the Clean Air Act includes the power to mandate the inclusion of emissions-control designations in pre-construction permits AND the power to determine whether the designations are in accord with the provisions of the Act.
New York v. EPA
New York v. EPA
When an issue of environmental concern requires a high degree of technical expertise, the court will defer to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agency (here, the EPA).
Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA
Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA
Polluters may trade emissions allowances with other polluters in the state, but neighboring states may still petition the EPA for relief under the Clean Air Act.
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen
Environmental Assessment; when an agency has no ability to prevent a certain effect, the agency cannot be considered a legally relevant cause of such effect; so under NEPA, the agency need not consider these effects in its EA.
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Administrative Procedures Act allows federal courts to compel agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed only for claims involving a specific agency action—a rule, order, license, sanction, or relief—required of agency by law.
EPA Has Discretion Regarding Standards
EPA Has Discretion Regarding Standards
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA; he Clean Air Act only mandates that residual risk standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and the EPA is free to determine that existing technology-based standards are ample.
Apportion Liability
Apportion Liability
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States; CERCLA does not mandate joint and several liability; scope of liability must be determined from traditional and evolving principles of common law.
CERCLA Cost Recovery Mechanisms
CERCLA Cost Recovery Mechanisms
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp; CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(B) provides Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) with a cause of action to recover, from other PRPs, costs voluntarily incurred in cleaning up a contaminated site; contribution.
Net Increase In Emmissions Measured Annually or Hourly
Net Increase In Emmissions Measured Annually or Hourly
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp; A Clean Air Act permit is required for any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a major stationary source that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant.
Fill Material Is Not a Pollutant
Fill Material Is Not a Pollutant
Coeur Alaska, In c. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council; The Army Corps of Engineers has the power to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material under 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a).
Endangered Species Act
Endangered Species Act
Friends of Blackwater v. Salazar; Endangered List recovery plan need not be strictly satisfied before a species may be delisted pursuant to the factors of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).