§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. RINEHART

Appellant’s Answer Brief on the Merits

53 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,488 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  2. Wyeth v. Levine

    555 U.S. 555 (2009)   Cited 1,432 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FDA's drug labeling judgments pursuant to the FDCA did not obstacle preempt state law products liability claims

  3. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council

    530 U.S. 363 (2000)   Cited 983 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

  4. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

    535 U.S. 302 (2002)   Cited 740 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding it “inappropriate to treat cases involving physical takings as controlling precedents for the evaluation of a claim that there has been a ‘regulatory taking,’ and vice versa”

  5. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

    529 U.S. 861 (2000)   Cited 787 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding the absence of an express pre-emption clause “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”

  6. Pacific Gas Elec. v. Energy Resources Comm'n

    461 U.S. 190 (1983)   Cited 1,172 times
    Holding "that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished ‘at all costs’ "

  7. United States v. Locke

    529 U.S. 89 (2000)   Cited 438 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption does not apply in areas with a "history of significant federal presence"

  8. Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson

    517 U.S. 25 (1996)   Cited 486 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal statute permitting banks to act as agents of insurance companies, although not insurers themselves, was a statute regulating the "business of insurance" for McCarran-Ferguson purposes

  9. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

    331 U.S. 218 (1947)   Cited 2,165 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

  10. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,184 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  11. Section 1701 - Congressional declaration of policy

    43 U.S.C. § 1701   Cited 543 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded prudential standing as to the FLPMA due only to their "aesthetic and "recreational interest" in land

  12. Section 22 - Lands open to purchase by citizens

    30 U.S.C. § 22   Cited 236 times

    Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and

  13. Section 1712 - Land use plans

    43 U.S.C. § 1712   Cited 142 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting BLM authority to issue land management plans

  14. Section 28 - Mining district regulations by miners: location, recordation, and amount of work; marking of location on ground; records; annual labor or improvements on claims pending issue of patent; co-owner's succession in interest upon delinquency in contributing proportion of expenditures; tunnel as lode expenditure

    30 U.S.C. § 28   Cited 137 times
    Allowing states to “make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, ... subject to the following requirement: [t]he location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced”

  15. Section 3001 - Definitions

    25 U.S.C. § 3001   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining human remains as Native American if they are "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States"

  16. Section 612 - Unpatented mining claims

    30 U.S.C. § 612   Cited 81 times
    Subjecting mining claims to certain restrictions

  17. Section 35 - Placer claims; entry and proceedings for patent under provisions applicable to vein or lode claims; conforming entry to legal subdivisions and surveys; limitation of claims; homestead entry of segregated agricultural land

    30 U.S.C. § 35   Cited 52 times
    Applying § 29 rule to placer claims

  18. Section 211 - Phosphate deposits

    30 U.S.C. § 211   Cited 7 times

    (a) Authorization to lease land; terms and conditions; acreage The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to lease to any applicant qualified under this chapter, through advertisement, competitive bidding, or such other methods as he may by general regulations adopt, any phosphate deposits of the United States, and lands containing such deposits, including associated and related minerals, when in his judgment the public interest will be best served thereby. The lands shall be leased under such terms

  19. Section 228.5 - Plan of operations-approval

    36 C.F.R. § 228.5   Cited 16 times

    (a) Operations shall be conducted in accordance with an approved plan of operations, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and in § 228.4 (a), (b), and (e) . A proposed plan of operation shall be submitted to the District Ranger, who shall promptly acknowledge receipt thereof to the operator. The authorized officer shall, within thirty (30) days of such receipt, analyze the proposal, considering the economics of the operation along with the other factors in determining the reasonableness

  20. Section 228 - Suction Dredging

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 228   Cited 4 times

    The Department has adopted this Section and Section 228.5 pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 5653.9, and to make specific and otherwise implement Fish and Game Code Section 5653, specifically. Pursuant to that authority, the Department finds that suction dredging subject to and consistent with the requirements of Sections 228 and 228.5 will not be deleterious to fish. (a) Suction dredging. For purposes of this Section and Section 228.5, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment (i.e.

  21. Section 15232 - Request for Hearing

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15232   Cited 1 times

    In a writ of mandate proceeding challenging approval of a project under CEQA, the petitioner shall, within 90 days of filing the petition, request a hearing or otherwise be subject to dismissal on the court's own motion or on the motion of any party to the suit. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15232 1. Change without regulatory effect amending NOTE filed 10-6-2005 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2005, No. 40). Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources