§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. RINEHART

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

59 Cited authorities

  1. 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

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

    535 U.S. 302 (2002)   Cited 742 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”

  3. 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’ "

  4. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

    544 U.S. 431 (2005)   Cited 549 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a preemption clause barring state laws "in addition to or different" from a federal Act does not interfere with an "equivalent" state provision

  5. In re S.B

    32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,474 times
    Holding that dependency matters are not exempt from the rule that "a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court"

  6. 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"

  7. Rodriguez v. United States

    480 U.S. 522 (1987)   Cited 402 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no irreconcilable conflict between a minimum sentence and the "suspension authority" of § 3651

  8. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana

    453 U.S. 609 (1981)   Cited 290 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a severance tax imposed on amount of coal mined was a "general revenue tax"

  9. California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co.

    480 U.S. 572 (1987)   Cited 187 times
    Holding that state permit requirements were not preempted by federal law, and stating that the party arguing in favor of preemption would have to demonstrate " that there is no possible set of conditions that the [state] could place on its permit that would not conflict with federal law — that any state permit requirement is per se preempted"

  10. People v. Picklesimer

    48 Cal.4th 330 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 265 times
    Holding that claims under Hofsheier by defendants no longer in custody must be brought by a petition for writ of mandate

  11. Section 4331 - Congressional declaration of national environmental policy

    42 U.S.C. § 4331   Cited 698 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing "the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man," and declaring the federal government’s responsibility to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage"

  12. Section 1600 - Congressional findings

    16 U.S.C. § 1600   Cited 469 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Directing agency to specify guidelines for land management plans

  13. 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

  14. Section 26 - Locators' rights of possession and enjoyment

    30 U.S.C. § 26   Cited 127 times
    Granting rights of possession and enjoyment to locators who "comply with the laws of the United States, and with State , territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title "

  15. Section 612 - Unpatented mining claims

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

  16. Section 4371 - Congressional findings, declarations, and purposes

    42 U.S.C. § 4371   Cited 37 times

    (a) The Congress finds- (1) that man has caused changes in the environment; (2) that many of these changes may affect the relationship between man and his environment; and (3) that population increases and urban concentration contribute directly to pollution and the degradation of our environment. (b) (1) The Congress declares that there is a national policy for the environment which provides for the enhancement of environmental quality. This policy is evidenced by statutes heretofore enacted relating

  17. Section 21a - National mining and minerals policy; "minerals" defined; execution of policy under other authorized programs

    30 U.S.C. § 21a   Cited 29 times
    Defining "minerals" to include coal

  18. Section 613 - Procedure for determining title uncertainties

    30 U.S.C. § 613   Cited 8 times

    (a) Notice to mining claimants; request; publication; service The head of a Federal department or agency which has the responsibility for administering surface resources of any lands belonging to the United States may file as to such lands in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, or in such office as the Secretary of the Interior may designate, a request for publication of notice to mining claimants, for determination of surface rights, which request shall contain a description of the lands

  19. Section 82-4-390 - Cyanide heap and vat leach open-pit gold and silver mining prohibited

    Mont. Code § 82-4-390   Cited 1 times

    (1) Open-pit mining for gold or silver using heap leaching or vat leaching with cyanide ore-processing reagents is prohibited except as described in subsection (2). (2) A mine described in this section operating on November 3, 1998, may continue operating under its existing operating permit or any amended permit that is necessary for the continued operation of the mine. § 82-4-390, MCA En. Sec. 1, I.M. No. 137, approved 11/3/1998; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 457, L. 1999.

  20. Section 15384 - Substantial Evidence

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15384   Cited 53 times

    (a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is

  21. Section 15382 - Significant Effect on the Environment

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15382   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses

    "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the

  22. Section 228.8 - Requirements for environmental protection

    36 C.F.R. § 228.8   Cited 24 times
    Identifying federal and state air, water, and solid waste standards that must be complied with and requiring operators to "take all practicable measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations"

  23. 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

  24. Section 3809.3 - What rules must I follow if State law conflicts with this subpart?

    43 C.F.R. § 3809.3   Cited 5 times
    Requiring operators to follow "a higher standard " under state law if one has been enacted

  25. Section 3830.2 - What is the scope of these regulations?

    43 C.F.R. § 3830.2

    These regulations govern locating, recording, and maintaining mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites on all Federal lands. These regulations do not authorize locating any new mining claims on Federal lands closed to mineral entry, including units of the National Park Service. (a) You must follow the recording and maintenance requirements in this part even if BLM has actual knowledge of the existence of your mining claims or sites through other means. (b) Part 3838 of this chapter describes supplemental