Law Commons^™

The Limited Standing Rule Of Chapter 380: Substantial Interests Lost In The Process, Jaimie A. Ross

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

The Proper Appellate Standard Of Review For Ptab Factual Findings Made Incidental To Claim Construction, A. David Brzozowski Ii

Catholic University Law Review

The America Invents Act (AIA) represents the most significant change to U.S. patent law since the 1952 Patent Act. Since its passage, the AIA has drawn wide support from the intellectual property community, primarily due to the new post-grant opposition proceedings the Act created.

However, certain aspects of the new system created by the AIA are controversial. Specifically, judges and practitioners alike debate which standard of review courts should apply to the factual findings made by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) during these opposition proceedings. While the Federal Circuit has reviewed all factual findings made at the Patent …

California V. United States Bureau Of Land Management, Molly M. Kelly

Public Land & Resources Law Review

After President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13783 encouraging relaxing regulatory burdens on energy production, the Bureau of Land Management reevaluated its 2016 “Waste Prevention Rule” which addressed waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, or other leaks resulting from oil and natural gas production activities. The BLM sought to postpone the Rule’s compliance date to give the agency time to promulgate a new rule—effectively overruling the 2016 Rule. Plaintiffs challenged the agency’s compliance under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the court found the BLM did not properly follow APA requirements.

Organizational Standing In Environmental Litigation, Jeanne A. Compitello

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Counter Revolution In The Federal Courts Of Appeal - The Aftermath Of Vermont Yankee, Jon A. Mueller

University of Richmond Law Review

In recent years, there has been growing judicial concern about the fairness of action by administrative agencies and the ability of courts to effectively review this action. This concern stems from the increased use of informal procedures by agencies promulgating rules or orders, to accomplish the congressional objectives set out in their substantive statutes. In response, certain federal courts of appeal have begun to impose upon these agencies more procedural safeguards than are required by either the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or substantive statutes. These judicially imposed safeguards are more commonly known as hybrid procedures.