Administrative Law Commons^™

State Bar Of California, K. Cannon, D. Flynn Shope

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Litigation, E. Angelo, J. Miller, V. Rabago

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

General Legislation, S. Barrow, A. Strassburg

California Regulatory Law Reporter

No abstract provided.

Appeal No. 0428: O. B. Ventures V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-575

Seventh Administrative Law Conference Agenda And Report, Patricia A. Dore

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Seventh Administrative Law Conference Chairman's Introduction To The Symposium Issue, Stephen T. Maher

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Florida Administrative Procedure Act After 15 Years, L. Harold Levinson

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

We're No Angels: Rulemaking And Judicial Review In Florida, Stephen T. Maher

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Failure Of The Florida Judicial Review Process To Provide Effective Incentives For Agency Rulemaking, Johnny C. Burris

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Quest For An Ideal State Administrative Rulemaking Procedure, Arthur Earl Bonefield

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Quarterly Report - Spring 1991, Nova University

The Quarterly Report

No abstract provided.

Conceiving Due Process, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Appeal No. 0412: International Energy Consultants, Inc. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-358

Appeal No. 0407: Redman Oil Co. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-341

Appeal No. 0409: Joseph M. Bennett V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-192

Appeal No. 0419: Bb Energy Corp. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-514

Appeal No. 0431: Redman Oil Company V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-677

Appeal No. 0435: Dusty Drilling And Production Corp. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 91-06

Standing To Contest Administrative Action Under The Land Withdrawal And Review Program: Lujan V. National Wildlife Federation, Darin T. Judd

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Appeal No. 0418: Maranatha Exploration, Inc. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-508

Appeal No. 0430: R & D Exploration, Inc. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-1651

Appeal No. 0375: Windham Township Trustees V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 89-552

Appeal No. 0410: Mason Drilling V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Motion to Dismiss

Appeal No. 0355: Edna Mae Mott V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 89-336

Appeal No. 0433: Cemco Operating, Inc. V.Scott Kell, Acting Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Department Of Natural Resources, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 90-670 (deny permit app) [from docket]

Appeal No. 0414: Atwood Energy, Inc. V. J. Michael Biddison, Chief Division Of Oil And Gas Ohio Department Of Natural Resources, Board Of Oil And Gas Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 90-371

Distributional Consquences Of Environmental Regulation: Economics, Politics, And Environmental Policymaking, Joseph P. Tomain

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In this article, environmental policymaking methods are explored through a fictional rediscovery in April 22, 2170 of two documents from 1991. One of the documents presents the background assumptions and technical concepts needed to design an environmental policy for the Town of Lawrenceville. The other document presents the Town of Lawrenceville with a discussion of the distributional consequences of three distinct and perhaps complementary environmental programs. The discussion of each program presents the likely distribution of benefits and costs. Each discussion concludes by speculating on the overall efficiency of the program. The recommendation is to submit the three environmental programs …

Are New Procedures Correction Enough For Florida's Child Abuse Registry Statute?, Walter E. Forehand

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining Tucker Act Jurisdiction After Bowen V. Massachusetts, Michael F. Noone Jr., Urban A. Lester

Scholarly Articles

Part I of this Article summarizes the relevant provisions of the Tucker Act, and examines courts' interpretations of whether a district court had jurisdiction over a claim when a potential judgment exceeded $10,000. This Article suggests that, over time, traditional Tucker Act jurisdiction has been distorted by the appearance of a new kind of plaintiff' seeking "structural reform" rather than the kinds of compensation envisioned by the Act. This Article also suggests that Tucker Act jurisdiction has been distorted by two congressional actions: the creation of the judgment fund; and amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act. These congressional actions could …

United States V. General Motors Corporation: Striking A Balance Under The Clean Air Act Between Epa Power To Penalize And The Right Of States To Tailor Revisions Of Their State Implementation Plans, Wardell Sanders

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.