How cited: Ocean County Landfill Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · Go Syfert

Ocean County Landfill Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011)

green · 23 citation events across 8 courts. Showing the 14 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Landfill Corp. v. EPA, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Region II, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir.2011), the District Court stated: Defendants’ denial of the 1-130 application does not represent final agency action because it does not mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process.
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Landfill Corp. v. EPA, 631 F.3d 652, 656 (3d Cir.2011) (“[W]here a state actor relies upon a federal agency’s notice, the state action does not convert the notice into a final agency act under the APA”) (citing Hindes v. FDIC, 137 F.3d 148, 163 (3d Cir.1998) (citing Air California v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 654 F.2d 616 , 621 (9th Cir.1981))); Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1055-56 (5th Cir.1993) (concluding tha…
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Landfill Corp. v. EPA, 631 F.3d 652, 656 (3d Cir. 2011) (“We therefore regard § 7661d(c) as indicating Congress’s intent to subject those objections to judicial review only after the EPA’s issuance or denial of a permit.” (emphasis added)). 26 Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 159 (2003). 6 No. 12-60482 challenging an EPA objection.
“We therefore regard § 7661d(c) as indicating Congress’s intent to subject those objections to judicial review only after the EPA’s issuance or denial of a permit.” (emphasis added)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir.
Landfill Corp. v. EPA, 631 F.3d 652, 656 (3d Cir.2011) (“We therefore regard § 7661d(c) as indicating Congress's intent to subject those objections to judicial review only after the EPA’s issuance or denial of a permit.” (emphasis added)). 26 .
green United States v. Maury (2012)
Rule Authority · 3rd Cir.
Landfill Corp. v. United States EPA, 631 F.3d 652, 654 (3d Cir.2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661-7661 f, 7661 a(d)(l), 40 C.F.R. § 70 , App. A).
green NAGLE v. JADDOU (2024)
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Landfill Corp. v. United States E.P.A., Region II, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 , 177–78 (1997)). 16 Id. (quoting Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J. v. Corrigan, 347 F.3d 57 , 69 (3d Cir. 2003)). 17 Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 , 333 (2022). 18 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (b). 19 Id. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 20 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(1).
quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 , 177–78 (1997)
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Region II, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.
As the District of Delaware also found, the court agrees that “[u]nder no reasonable interpretation of ‘finality’ can the seizure of goods, which sets off a codified procedure for forfeiture or petitions, be considered the ‘consummation’ of an ‘agency’s decisionmaking process.’ Seizures do not determine the rights or obligations of LKQ, nor do legal consequences flow from the decision to seize the goods under the customs laws.” LKQ Corp., 369 F. Supp. 3d at 588 (citing Ocean…
green MATULEWSKI v. POMPEO (2019)
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Landfill Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., Region II, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Landfill Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., Region II , 631 F.3d 652 655 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Bennett v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154 , 177-178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 , 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) ).
quoting Bennett v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154 , 177-178, 117 S.Ct. 1154 , 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)
Rule Authority · N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
Landfill Corp. v. USEPA, 631 F.3d 652, 654 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa.
Landfill Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., Region II, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 , 117 S.Ct. 1154 , 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)).
quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 , 117 S.Ct. 1154 , 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)
green Naik v. Renaud (2013)
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Region II, 631 F.3d 652, 655 (3d Cir.2011) (quoting Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of New Jersey v. Corrigan, 347 F.3d 57 , 69 (3d Cir.2003)).