33 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,290 times 225 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,614 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
497 U.S. 871 (1990) Cited 9,537 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit affidavits in support of standing when filed after summary judgment briefing and hearing were complete
United States v. Mead Corp.
533 U.S. 218 (2001) Cited 2,593 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"
Christensen v. Harris County
529 U.S. 576 (2000) Cited 1,893 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
456 U.S. 305 (1982) Cited 1,768 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation
Elsayed Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., Hayward
299 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 343 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding that the plaintiff's “racial discrimination case [was] a disagreement among academic professionals, which is something that Title VII does not proscribe”
Malat v. Riddell
383 U.S. 569 (1966) Cited 263 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding primarily means "of first importance"
U.S. v. San Francisco
310 U.S. 16 (1940) Cited 276 times
Holding that city cannot retain federal land grant and attempt to invalidate restrictions under which it accepted the land
Aguilar v. International Longshoremen's Union
966 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 153 times
Holding that legal expert testimony about what the law is and how it should be applied must be excluded
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,664 times 255 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,025 times 12 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."
Section 1311 - Effluent limitations
33 U.S.C. § 1311 Cited 1,970 times 47 Legal Analyses
Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"
Section 1342 - National pollutant discharge elimination system
33 U.S.C. § 1342 Cited 1,478 times 43 Legal Analyses
Granting EPA the authority to require a permit for such discharges
Section 1369 - Administrative procedure and judicial review
33 U.S.C. § 1369 Cited 338 times 26 Legal Analyses
Vesting jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeals to review the EPA’s action "in making any determination as to a State permit program submitted under section 1342(b) of [Title 33] ...."
Section 122.26 - Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Section 123.25)
40 C.F.R. § 122.26 Cited 184 times 39 Legal Analyses
Requiring permits for discharges from oil and gas activities that contribute to a violation of a water quality standard
Section 122.21 - Application for a permit (applicable to State programs, see Section 123.25)
40 C.F.R. § 122.21 Cited 70 times
(a)Duty to apply. (1) Any person who discharges or proposes to discharge pollutants or who owns or operates a "sludge-only facility" whose sewage sludge use or disposal practice is regulated by part 503 of this chapter, and who does not have an effective permit, except persons covered by general permits under § 122.28 , excluded under § 122.3 , or a user of a privately owned treatment works unless the Director requires otherwise under § 122.44(m) , must submit a complete application to the Director

Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

33 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit affidavits in support of standing when filed after summary judgment briefing and hearing were complete

Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"

Holding that agency interpretations contained in "policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines, all of which lack the force of law do not warrant Chevron-style deference"

Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation

Finding that the plaintiff's “racial discrimination case [was] a disagreement among academic professionals, which is something that Title VII does not proscribe”

Holding primarily means "of first importance"

Holding that city cannot retain federal land grant and attempt to invalidate restrictions under which it accepted the land

Holding that legal expert testimony about what the law is and how it should be applied must be excluded

Adopting the Daubert standard

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"

Granting EPA the authority to require a permit for such discharges

Vesting jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeals to review the EPA’s action "in making any determination as to a State permit program submitted under section 1342(b) of [Title 33] ...."

Requiring permits for discharges from oil and gas activities that contribute to a violation of a water quality standard