§Why CasetextPricing

Nuclear Watch New Mexico V.United States Department of Energy et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

56 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 253,484 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

    511 U.S. 375 (1994)   Cited 19,064 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement

  3. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't

    523 U.S. 83 (1998)   Cited 10,765 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

  4. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.

    528 U.S. 167 (2000)   Cited 7,169 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

  5. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

    520 U.S. 43 (1997)   Cited 2,523 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff's challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment

  6. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.

    494 U.S. 472 (1990)   Cited 3,313 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding mootness destroys subject-matter jurisdiction

  7. City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.

    529 U.S. 277 (2000)   Cited 1,062 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an ordinance barring full nudity at nude dancing clubs does not violate the First Amendment

  8. Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation

    484 U.S. 49 (1987)   Cited 950 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that jurisdiction is established "when the citizen-plaintiffs make a good-faith allegation of continuous or intermittent violation"

  9. Larson v. Domestic Foreign Corp.

    337 U.S. 682 (1949)   Cited 1,471 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the actions of an officer do not conflict with the terms of his valid statutory authority, then they are the actions of the sovereign"

  10. Department of Energy v. Ohio

    503 U.S. 607 (1992)   Cited 272 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this "proviso serves to confirm" and "clarify" the provision's sovereign immunity waiver

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 346,675 times   923 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,599 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,934 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  14. Section 2201 - Creation of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2201   Cited 24,568 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

  15. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,073 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

  16. Section 1365 - Citizen suits

    33 U.S.C. § 1365   Cited 2,196 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Granting Administrator right to intervene in citizen suits

  17. Section 1536 - Interagency cooperation

    16 U.S.C. § 1536   Cited 1,320 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that every federal agency "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species"

  18. Section 6972 - Citizen suits

    42 U.S.C. § 6972   Cited 1,201 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Abrogating the 60-day delay requirement when there is a danger that hazardous waste will be discharged

  19. Section 6903 - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 6903   Cited 676 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Adopting federal definition of hazardous waste

  20. 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

  21. Section 270.42 - Permit modification at the request of the permittee

    40 C.F.R. § 270.42   Cited 10 times
    Adopting 40 C.F.R. Part 270

  22. Section 270.14 - Contents of part B: General requirements

    40 C.F.R. § 270.14   Cited 9 times

    (a) Part B of the permit application consists of the general information requirements of this section, and the specific information requirements in §§ 0.14 through 270.29 applicable to the facility. The part B information requirements presented in §§ 270.14 through 270.29 reflect the standards promulgated in 40 CFR part 264 . These information requirements are necessary in order for EPA to determine compliance with the part 264 standards. If owners and operators of HWM facilities can demonstrate

  23. Section 272.1601 - New Mexico State-Administered Program: Final Authorization

    40 C.F.R. § 272.1601   Cited 4 times

    (a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b) , the EPA granted New Mexico final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in New Mexico's base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on January 25, 1985. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on April 10, 1990, July 25, 1990, December 4, 1992, August 23, 1994, December 21, 1994, July 10, 1995, January 2, 1996, March 10, 1997, October 9, 2001, October

  24. Section 20.4.1.901 - PERMITTING PROCEDURES

    N.M. Code R. § 20.4.1.901   Cited 2 times
    Incorporating among other things, 40 C.F.R. § 270.41

  25. Section 270.23 - Specific part B information requirements for miscellaneous units

    40 C.F.R. § 270.23   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Except as otherwise provided in § 264.600 , owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units must provide the following additional information: (a) A detailed description of the unit being used or proposed for use, including the following: (1) Physical characteristics, materials of construction, and dimensions of the unit; (2) Detailed plans and engineering reports describing how the unit will be located, designed, constructed, operated, maintained