Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
-
- Consumer Protection Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Courts (1)
- Cultural Heritage Law (1)
- Energy and Utilities Law (1)
- Environmental Health (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Land Use Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Life Sciences (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
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 …
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A peat mining company will not be required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to discharge dredged and fill material into wetlands. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers fell short in its attempts to establish jurisdiction over the wetlands by twice failing to show a significant nexus existed between the wetlands and navigable waters. Further, the district court enjoined the Corps from asserting jurisdiction a third time because it would force the mining company through a “never ending loop” of administrative law.