§Why CasetextPricing

State of South Carolina v. United States et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment Response

74 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,840 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

    542 U.S. 55 (2004)   Cited 1,467 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law

  3. Texas v. United States

    523 U.S. 296 (1998)   Cited 1,470 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim that "rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all" is not ripe for adjudication

  4. TRW Inc. v. Andrews

    534 U.S. 19 (2001)   Cited 1,187 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding a cardinal principal of statutory interpretation is that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant”

  5. King v. Burwell

    574 U.S. 988 (2015)   Cited 670 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress did not delegate health insurance policy to Internal Revenue Service

  6. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

    490 U.S. 332 (1989)   Cited 1,390 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"

  7. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.

    514 U.S. 211 (1995)   Cited 885 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding legislated invalidation of final judgments to be categorically unconstitutional

  8. Shaw v. Stroud

    13 F.3d 791 (4th Cir. 1994)   Cited 3,401 times
    Holding that supervisory liability exists only where a supervisor was aware that his or her subordinate was acting to violate a plaintiff's rights and acted with deliberate indifference in the face of that knowledge

  9. U.S. v. Dunkel

    927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 2,226 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the record

  10. Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.

    537 U.S. 149 (2003)   Cited 370 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Government's untimeliness did not bar it from taking action beyond the statutory deadline

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,775 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,443 times   184 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  13. Section 701 - Application; definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 701   Cited 9,366 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition given in Section 551

  14. Section 702 - Right of review

    5 U.S.C. § 702   Cited 7,053 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting judicial review of "agency action"

  15. Section 704 - Actions reviewable

    5 U.S.C. § 704   Cited 4,250 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Granting judicial review over " final agency action"

  16. Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 4321   Cited 3,499 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"

  17. Section 1395ff - Determinations; appeals

    42 U.S.C. § 1395ff   Cited 795 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Social Security statute 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which confers on federal courts the jurisdiction to hear Medicare claims after administrative review has been exhausted

  18. Section 1304 - Judgments, awards, and compromise settlements

    31 U.S.C. § 1304   Cited 301 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Appropriating funds for interest on certain district court judgments

  19. Section 450 - Transferred

    25 U.S.C. § 450   Cited 284 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Proclaiming that "prolonged Federal domination . . . has served to retard rather than enhance the progress of Indian people and their communities by depriving Indians of the full opportunity to develop leadership skills crucial to the realization of self government"

  20. Section 1341 - Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

    31 U.S.C. § 1341   Cited 234 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a federal employee "may not . . . involve [the government] in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law"

  21. Section 1505.2 - Record of decision in cases requiring environmental impact statements

    40 C.F.R. § 1505.2   Cited 89 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “[a]t the time of its decision or, if appropriate, its recommendation to Congress, each agency shall prepare a concise public record of decision”

  22. Section 51.166 - Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality

    40 C.F.R. § 51.166   Cited 69 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Repeating statutory definition

  23. Appendix A to Part 70 - Reportable Safety Events

    10 C.F.R. § 70 app A to Part 70   Cited 3 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Licensees must comply with reporting requirements in this appendix. As required by 10 CFR 70.74 , licensees subject to the requirements in subpart H of part 70, shall report: (a) One hour reports. Events to be reported to the NRC Operations Center within 1 hour of discovery, supplemented with the information in 10 CFR 70.50(c)(1) as it becomes available, followed by a written report within 60 days: (1) An inadvertent nuclear criticality. (2) An acute intake by an individual of 30 mg or greater of

  24. Appendix A to Subpart B to Part 830 - General Statement of Safety Basis Policy

    10 C.F.R. § 830 app A to Subpart B to Part 830   Cited 1 times

    A. Introduction This appendix describes DOE's expectations for the safety basis requirements of 10 CFR part 830 , acceptable methods for implementing these requirements, and criteria DOE will use to evaluate compliance with these requirements. This appendix does not create any new requirements and should be used consistently with DOE's policy that work be conducted safely and efficiently and in a manner that ensures protection of workers, the public, and the environment. B. Purpose 1. The safety

  25. Appendix A to Part 820 - General Statement of Enforcement Policy

    10 C.F.R. § 820 app A to Part 820   1 Legal Analyses

    I. Introduction (a) This policy statement sets forth the general framework through which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will seek to ensure compliance with its enforceable nuclear safety regulations and orders (hereafter collectively referred to as DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements) and, in particular, exercise the civil penalty authority provided to DOE in the Price Anderson Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 2282a (PAAA). The policy set forth herein is applicable to violations of DOE Nuclear