Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Environmental Law (60)
- Natural Resources Law (59)
- Administrative Law (58)
- Energy and Utilities Law (56)
- Land Use Law (56)
-
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (56)
- Water Law (55)
- Science and Technology Law (51)
- Agriculture Law (48)
- Animal Law (48)
- Cultural Heritage Law (48)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (48)
- Law and Race (44)
- Government Contracts (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Agency (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Evidence (1)
- International Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Keyword
-
- Pipeline (4)
- CERCLA (3)
- Clean Water Act (3)
- Appalachian Trail (2)
- Asarco (2)
-
- Atlantic Coast Pipeline (2)
- BLM (2)
- CWA (2)
- EPA (2)
- ESA (2)
- Endangered Species Act (2)
- Lead (2)
- MEIC (2)
- Mineral Leasing Act (2)
- Mining (2)
- Montana Supreme Court (2)
- NEPA (2)
- National Environmental Policy Act (2)
- Permit (2)
- Reservation (2)
- Superfund (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- 350 Montana (1)
- 350 Montana v. Bernhardt (1)
- APA (1)
- ASARCO LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1)
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- Administrative procedure act (1)
- Agency discretion (1)
- Allocation (1)
Articles 61 - 76 of 76
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte
Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Throughout the twentieth century, Teck Cominco Metals leaked metal pollutants into the Upper Columbia River that ultimately entered the United States and the Colville Indian Reservation. In 2004, after almost a decade of working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Colville Tribes initiated a citizen suit under CERCLA against Teck for damaging the ecosystem of the Upper Columbia River. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment against Teck for recovery costs and attorney’s fees.
Master Limited Partnerships: A Step In The Renewable Direction, Rebekah M. Gryder
Master Limited Partnerships: A Step In The Renewable Direction, Rebekah M. Gryder
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Tribute To The Honorable Karen Townsend, Cynthia Ford
A Tribute To The Honorable Karen Townsend, Cynthia Ford
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
Tribal Courts, The Violence Against Women Act, And Supplemental Jurisdiction: Expanding Tribal Court Jurisdiction To Improve Public Safety In Indian Country, Adam Crepelle
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
Issuance Of The Keystone Xl Permit: Presidential Prerogative Or Presidential "Chutzpah", Hope M. Babcock
Issuance Of The Keystone Xl Permit: Presidential Prerogative Or Presidential "Chutzpah", Hope M. Babcock
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks: State V. Wilson In Light Of Changing Marijuana Law, Peter Yould
You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks: State V. Wilson In Light Of Changing Marijuana Law, Peter Yould
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
City Of Missoula V. Kroschel: Missing The Mark On Montana's Terry Statute, Kirsi Luther
City Of Missoula V. Kroschel: Missing The Mark On Montana's Terry Statute, Kirsi Luther
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
Significant Montana Cases, Montana Law Review Staff
Significant Montana Cases, Montana Law Review Staff
Montana Law Review
No abstract provided.
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …
Preview—Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company: Allocation Of Remediation Costs Under Cercla, Nyles G. Greer
Preview—Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company: Allocation Of Remediation Costs Under Cercla, Nyles G. Greer
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals originally scheduled oral arguments in this matter for Tuesday, March 31, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle, Washington. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ninth Circuit has postponed oral arguments in this matter. While still subject to change due to the pandemic, the court has rescheduled oral arguments for April 27, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 of the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle, Washington. Shannon Wells Stevenson will likely appear on behalf of the Appellant. Gregory Evans will likely appear on behalf of the Appellee.
Juliana V. United States, Anthony Reed
Juliana V. United States, Anthony Reed
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Plaintiffs sued the United States government for promoting activities that were known to pollute the atmosphere and cause climate change. They claimed the government’s policies violated their rights under the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Ninth Amendment, and the public trust doctrine. The Ninth Circuit held it was not within the court’s Article III power to create and oversee a comprehensive plan capable of redressing the Plaintiffs’ injuries and, therefore, Plaintiffs lacked standing.
Navajo Nation V. United States Department Of The Interior, Adam W. Johnson
Navajo Nation V. United States Department Of The Interior, Adam W. Johnson
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Navajo Nation sued the United States government alleging the government breached its trust obligation over the allocation of water rights in the Colorado River Basin. On remand, the district court denied the Navajo Nation leave to file its third amended complaint for futility, holding that the general trust relationship was insufficient to support the Nation’s breach of trust claim.
Preview—United States Forest Service V. Cowpasture River Preservation Association: Can The Pipeline Cross The Trail?, Alizabeth Bronsdon
Preview—United States Forest Service V. Cowpasture River Preservation Association: Can The Pipeline Cross The Trail?, Alizabeth Bronsdon
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in this matter on Monday, February 24, 2020, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Anthony Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, will likely argue for the United States. In a divided oral argument, Paul D. Clement will likely appear for Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, the petitioner in consolidated case No. 18-1587, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. Michael K. Kellogg will likely appear for the Respondents.
Montana Environmental Information Center V. Department Of Environmental Quality, Anthony P. Reed
Montana Environmental Information Center V. Department Of Environmental Quality, Anthony P. Reed
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The DEQ renewed a 1999 MPDES Permit on September 14, 2012 that allowed Western Energy Company to discharge pollutants from the Rosebud Mine into streams. Environmental groups MEIC and the Sierra Club sued, arguing this violated both the Montana Water Quality Act and federal Clean Water Act because the DEQ’s interpretation of its own regulations that exempted waters with ephemeral characteristics from water quality standards was arbitrary and capricious. The district court agreed, but the Montana Supreme Court reversed. It held the DEQ’s interpretation was lawful and remanded for further fact finding to assess how the DEQ applied the interpretation …
Northern Plains Resource Council V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Liz M. Forster
Northern Plains Resource Council V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Liz M. Forster
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Environmental activist and indigenous rights groups have challenged the validity of the Keystone XL Pipeline since its initial approval in 2010. In April 2020, less than a month after crews broke ground, the opposing groups notched a major win when the United States District Court for the District of Montana revoked a key permit for the project on the grounds that the United States Army Corps of Engineers had inadequately assessed the pipeline’s impact on endangered species.