Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Administrative Law (3)
- Civil Law (3)
- Land Use Law (3)
- Law and Society (3)
- Litigation (3)
-
- Natural Resources Law (3)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (3)
- Property Law and Real Estate (3)
- Business Organizations Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Common Law (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Contracts (2)
- Courts (2)
- Cultural Heritage Law (2)
- Energy and Utilities Law (2)
- Government Contracts (2)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Law and Economics (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Legal History (2)
- Organizations Law (2)
- President/Executive Department (2)
- Business (1)
- Business Administration, Management, and Operations (1)
- Keyword
-
- CERCLA (2)
- EPA (2)
- Environmental Protection Agency (2)
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2)
- RCRA (2)
-
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (2)
- Tribe (2)
- 1998 RCRA Decree (1)
- 2009 CERCLA Decree (1)
- 866 F.3d 1108 (1)
- 9th Circuit (1)
- Adjudicatory jurisdiction (1)
- American Humanist Association (1)
- American Legion (1)
- American Smelting and Refining Company (1)
- Anaconda (1)
- Anaconda Copper Mining Company (1)
- Anaconda Mining Company (1)
- And welfare of a tribe (1)
- Annual fee (1)
- Appeal (1)
- Arco (1)
- Asarco (1)
- Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1)
- Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Company (1)
- Atlantic Richfield (1)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. (1)
- Atlantic Richfield Company (1)
- Beneficial interest (1)
- Catastrophic (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
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 …
American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla
American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey
Asarco Llc V. Atlantic Richfield Company, Ryan L. Hickey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabiltiy Act, commonly known as CERCLA, facilitates cleanup of hazardous waste sites and those contaminated by other harmful substances by empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties and require them to undertake or fund remediation. Because pollution sometimes occurrs over long periods of time by multiple parties, CERCLA also enables polluters to seek financial contribution from other contaminators of a particular site. The Ninth Circuit clarified the particuar circumstances under which contribution actions may arise in Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co., holding non-CERCLA settlements may give rise to CERCLA contribution …
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 …