green
Positive treatment
13.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. Geren
(2×)
Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA 494 F.2d 519, 525 (2d Cir.1974) (declining to remand to EPA because “[t]here is no reason” to make “the Administrator busy himself disproving a thousand negatives to prove a single positive”); and, as in Krauss , by ERISA plan administrators, see Giordano v. Thomson, 564 F.3d 163 , 168 & n. 3 (2d Cir.2009) (characterizing remand as futile because plan did not err in denying benefits).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA
It does not require such assurances for each specific control measure. 69 While the Act does not define "necessary assurances," other circuits have held that "Congress has left to the Administrator's sound discretion determination of what assurances are `necessary.'" NRDC v. EPA, 478 F.2d 875 , 884 (1st Cir.1973); see Friends of the Earth v. United States EPA, 499 F.2d 1118, 1126 (2d Cir.1974) (following First Circuit); NRDC v. United States EPA, 494 F.2d 519, 527 (2d Cir. 1974) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BCCA Appeal Group v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
While the Act does not define “necessary assurances,” other circuits have held that “Congress has left to the Administrator’s sound discretion determination of what assurances are ‘necessary.’ ” NRDC v. EPA 478 F.2d 875 , 884 (1st Cir.1973); see Friends of the Earth v. United States EPA, 499 F.2d 1118, 1126 (2d Cir.1974) (following First Circuit); NRDC v. United States EPA 494 F.2d 519, 527 (2d Cir. 1974) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, National Retail Merchants Association, Intervenors
(2×)
Petitioners have not met their burden of going forward with evidence that any particular measure not adopted by Connecticut is “reasonably available.” See Citizens for a Better Environment v. USEPA, 649 F.2d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 1981); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. USEPA, 494 F.2d 519, 524-25 (2d Cir. 1974).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 483 F. 2d 690, 693-694 (CA8 1973); Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 494 F. 2d 519, 523 (CA2 1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway
The rule of reason applied sensibly to this type of case requires only consideration of enough feasible alternatives that a reasoned choice can be made by the decisionmaker. 125 See Friends of the Earth v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 499 F.2d 1118, 1126 (2d Cir. 1974); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 494 F.2d 519, 524-525 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., a Non-Profit New York Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The First Circuit, in reasoning that has since been adopted by the Second and Eighth Circuits, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 494 F.2d 519, 523 (2d Cir. 1974); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 483 F.2d 690, 693-694 (8th Cir. 1973), categorized as the “preattainment” period that time within which the states must achieve national primary ambient air standards, viz., “as expeditiously as practicable” but in no case later than 3 *912 years beyond the date on which the state implementation plan is approved by EPA. 478 F.2d at 885.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
South Terminal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, and Russell E. Train, Administrator, Massachusetts Port Authority v. Environmental Protection Agency, and Russell E. Train, Administrator, Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Oil Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Texaco, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Fitz-Inn Auto Parks, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Pilgrim Parking Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Marvin A. Meyers, as He is President of Pilgrim Parking Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Associated Dry Good Corporation Etc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
If nothing can be done until everything is explained, the mandate of the statute will never be translated into accomplishment.' 102 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 494 F.2d 519, 525 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
South Terminal Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
If nothing can be done until everything is explained, the mandate of the statute will never be translated into accomplishment.” Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 494 F.2d 519, 525 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
First Commodity Corp. Of Boston and Richard Badoian v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and John Ruddy
See Economou v. Department of Agriculture, supra; McCurnin v. Kohlmeyer & Co., supra. Both of these cases, however, were decided before the “recklessness” rulings in the 10b-5 area, and, in any event, neither suggests that the “willful” requirement of the Commodity Act’s antifraud provision cannot be read to include “reckless.” In fact, Prosser suggests the two terms are often used interchangeably.
discussed
Cited "see"
Butz v. Economou
(2×)
See Economou v. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 494 F. 2d 519 (CA2 1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Friends of the Earth v. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nelson Rockefeller, in His Capacity as Governor of New York
(2×)
See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, supra, 494 F.2d at 525-526, 527 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur N. Economou and Arthur N. Economou & Co., Inc.
v.
United States Department of Agriculture
v.
United States Department of Agriculture
759.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 28, 1974.
Published
Arthur N. ECONOMOU and Arthur N. Economou & Co., Inc., Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.
No. 759, Docket 73-1221.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 28, 1974.
Decided March 28, 1974.
Arthur N. Economou, petitioner pro se.
Jackson & Kupperman, Brooklyn N.Y., on the brief for petitioner Corp.
Irving Jaffe, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice (Morton Hollander and Michael H. Stein, Attys., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., of counsel), on the brief for respondent.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, and SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[*~519]1
Petitioners, who are no longer in business as futures commission merchants under the Commodity Exchange Act seek review of a 90-day suspension order, advancing numerous grounds, including estoppel, lack of evidence of violation and of willfulness. We need not address most of these, since it appears that the essential finding of willfulness, now passionately protested, was made in a proceeding instituted without the customary warning letter, which the Judicial Officer conceded might well have resulted in prompt correction of the claimed insufficiencies. Under these circumstances, the finding of willfulness appears erroneous on the record taken as a whole, and the sanctions imposed unwarranted.
[*~527]2
The petition for review is granted and the order set aside.