§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., et al., Respondents,v.New York State Department of State et al., Appellants.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. Radzanower v. Touche Ross Co.

    426 U.S. 148 (1976)   Cited 509 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding § 78aa did not supersede narrower venue provision in National Bank Act and rejecting amicus SEC's suggestion § 78aa should apply nonetheless to facilitate consolidation of litigation as a “policy argument ... more appropriately addressed to Congress”

  2. California Public Employees' v. Worldcom, Inc.

    368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 336 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 22 does not bar removal under § 1452

  3. United States v. Borden Co.

    308 U.S. 188 (1939)   Cited 523 times
    In Borden, the District Court had held all four counts of the indictment invalid as a matter of construction of the Sherman Act, but had also held the third count defective as a matter of pleading.

  4. Weaver's Cove v. R.I. Coastal

    589 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that a favorable decision would provide plaintiff “effectual relief” by removing “a barrier to achieving approval” even though additional regulatory hurdles would need to be cleared before project could be commenced

  5. Islander East Pipeline Co. v. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

    467 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that participation in federal permitting programs waives immunity from suits under § 717r(d)

  6. Southern Pac. Transp. v. California Coastal Com'n

    520 F. Supp. 800 (N.D. Cal. 1981)   Cited 2 times

    No. C-80-3916-MHP. August 11, 1981. Thormund A. Miller, Louis P. Warchot, Gary A. Laakso, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff and counterdefendant. Linus Masouredis, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant and counterclaimant. OPINION PATEL, District Judge. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (hereinafter Southern Pacific) brought this action for declaratory relief against the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission), which has filed a counterclaim for declaratory and

  7. Section 2011 - Congressional declaration of policy

    42 U.S.C. § 2011   Cited 423 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Atomic energy is capable of application for peaceful as well as military purposes. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that- (a) the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare, subject at all times to the paramount objective of making the maximum contribution to the common defense and security; and (b) the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to promote

  8. Section 1341 - Certification

    33 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 394 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Providing that each state "shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all applications for certification by it and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection with specific applications."

  9. Section 1451 - Congressional findings

    16 U.S.C. § 1451   Cited 220 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Increasing demands on coastal zones "have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion"

  10. Section 1456 - Coordination and cooperation

    16 U.S.C. § 1456   Cited 147 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In 16 U.S.C. § 1456(e)(1), the Act states that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed... to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters.

  11. Section 1455 - Administrative grants

    16 U.S.C. § 1455   Cited 44 times
    Listing requirements of state management programs

  12. Section 1454 - Submittal of State program for approval

    16 U.S.C. § 1454   Cited 27 times
    Establishing process for federal approval of state coastal zone management programs

  13. Section 930.51 - Federal license or permit

    15 C.F.R. § 930.51   Cited 8 times

    (a) The term "federal license or permit" means any authorization that an applicant is required by law to obtain in order to conduct activities affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone and that any Federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant. The term "federal license or permit" does not include OCS plans, and federal license or permit activities described in detail in OCS plans, which are subject to subpart E of this part, or leases issued pursuant to lease

  14. Section 930.130 - Closure of the decision record and issuance of decision

    15 C.F.R. § 930.130   Cited 2 times

    (a) (1) With the exception of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary shall close the decision record not later than 160 days after the date that the Secretary's Notice of Appeal is published in the FEDERAL REGISTER under § 930.128(a) . After closing the decision record, the Secretary shall immediately publish a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER stating that the decision record has been closed. The notice shall also state that the Secretary shall not consider additional information, briefs or