Court Rules North Dakota Statute 
JURIST
APRIL 22, 2022
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said: “[T]he fact that a North Dakota Law Firm, Boechler, P.C., ” For the “jurisdictional label” to apply, Congress must “clearly state” that a rule is intended to be jurisdictional. The statute does not say that as to the 30-day deadline. Reagan National Advertising , United States v.
SCOTUSBlog
SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
On Friday, the justices agreed to decide whether the Nollan / Dolan test applies to a California man’s challenge to a development fee, or whether – as a California appeals court ruled – the fee is instead immune from such review because it was authorized by legislation. A federal appeals court ruled that Fikre’s case was not moot.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 25, 2022
Tax Court has the power to excuse the missed deadline for equitable reasons, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a unanimous decision. a North Dakota law firm, of intent to levy on Boechler’s property to satisfy a tax penalty. Grammar – or more specifically, lack thereof – was key to the court’s decision.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
JULY 6, 2017
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. Two other states—Texas and North Dakota—filed an amicus brief supporting EPA; the petitioners opposed their participation on procedural grounds. Clean Air Council v. Pruitt , No.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
MARCH 6, 2018
The California federal court said the substantive legal issues in the District of Wyoming case were distinct from the procedural issues at issue in this action. A few days after the California court issued its order, North Dakota and Texas asked the Wyoming federal court to lift a stay that the court had imposed in December 2017.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
FEBRUARY 10, 2021
A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Colorado recommended that the court grant an underground coal mine operator’s motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act citizen suit that alleged the mine required a Prevention of Significant Deterioration construction permit and a Title V operating permit. 1:20-cv-01342 (D.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
NOVEMBER 7, 2017
The court also granted motions to strike the state law claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. The court granted the company leave to amend its complaint with 21 days. A Minnesota trial court granted four environmental activists’ motion to present a necessity defense.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
104 
Let's personalize your content