Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Clean Air Act (2)
- EPA (2)
- Environmental Protection Agency (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Agency (1)
-
- Beneficial interest (1)
- CAA (1)
- Carbon Dioxide (1)
- Clean Power Plan (1)
- Coal (1)
- Coal Industry (1)
- Energy (1)
- Environment (1)
- Greenhouse gas (1)
- Indian Law (1)
- Labor (1)
- Mineral (1)
- Mineral development (1)
- Mineral estate (1)
- Mineral lease (1)
- Mining (1)
- Murray (1)
- Murray Energy (1)
- Murray Energy Corp. v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Native American Law (1)
- Obama (1)
- Oklahoma (1)
- Osage (1)
- Osage Act (1)
- Osage Nation (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Murray Energy Corporation V. Administrator Of Environmental Protection Agency, Peter B. Taylor
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because of public concern that enforcement of the Clean Air Act would have adverse effects on employment. Section 321(a) tasks the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with a continuous duty to evaluate the potential employment impact of the administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In Murray Energy Corporation v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on whether the federal court’s authority to review and enforce non-discretionary Clean Air Act duties extended to the EPA’s Section 321(a) duty to continuously …
Earthreports, Inc. V. Ferc, Caitlin Buzzas
Earthreports, Inc. V. Ferc, Caitlin Buzzas
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC the Court ruled that when a state challenges a liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) export project, this should target the Department of Energy, not the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Holding that the widespread effects of environmental regulation on the coal industry constituted sufficient importance, the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct analysis on employment loss and plant reduction resulting from regulatory effects. In admonishing the EPA’s inaction, the court ruled that the Agency had a non-discretionary duty to evaluate employment and plant reduction. Furthermore, the court held that the EPA’s attempt to put forth general reports in place of required evaluations was an invalid attempt to circumvent its statutory duty.