State of Ohio v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1993)
green
· 93 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 41 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199320092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
First, the 2020 Permit satisfies § 9621(b)(1)'s requirement that the EPA select a remedy that is both "protective of human health and the environment" and "cost effective." Id.; cf. Ohio v. U.S. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1532 (D.C.
noting that the "statutory language [of § 9621(b)(1)] places as much emphasis on the selection of cost-effective remedies as it does on the selection of permanent remedies"
See, e.g., American Surety Co. of N.Y. v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513, 517 , 53 S.Ct. 260 , 77 L.Ed. 466 (1933); Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1543 (D.C.
Ass’n v. EPA 88 F.3d 1075, 1097 (D.C.Cir.1996); Ohio v. EPA 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308 (D.C.Cir.1991); Natural Res.
green
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. United States (2006)
See, e.g., CERCLA § 121, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (requiring “[t]he President [to] select a remedial action that is protective of human health and the environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable,” and setting standards for meeting this requirement); Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1526 (D.C.
noting that “the statute . . . require[s] that remedial actions at Superfund sites result in a level of cleanup or standard of control that at least meets the legally applicable or otherwise relevant and appropriate federal (or stricter state
green
Robbins v. Chronister (2005)
Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 1529-30 (11th Cir.1996) (holding it would be absurd to apply Clean Water Act's requirement of "zero discharge" to de minimis pollution discharges that posed no threat to public health); Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1534-35 (D.C.Cir.1993) (holding it would be absurd not to sustain a de minimis exception to a statute requiring periodic review of certain Superfund sites). 12 The Supreme Court has invoked the absurdity doctrine at least five times in recent y…
green
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency Carol M. Browner, Administrator, E… (1994)
In such cloudy circumstances, "it is enough that the Agency's construction is reasonable." Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1527 (D.C.Cir.1993).
In such cloudy circumstances, “it is enough that the Agency’s construction is reasonable.” Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1527 (D.C.Cir.1993).
green
De Nemours and Company v. United States (2006)
See, e.g., CERCLA § 121, 42 U.S.C. § 9621 (requiring "[t]he President [to] select a remedial action that is protective of human health and the environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable," and setting standards for meeting this requirement); Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1526 (D.C.Cir.1993) (noting that "the statute ... require[s] that remed…
See Ohio, 997 F.2d at 1528-29 (“Judicial efficiency is served because issues that are raised before the agency might be resolved without the need for judicial intervention.”).
“Judicial efficiency is served because issues that are raised before the agency might be resolved without the need for judicial intervention.”
Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir.1993).
Ohio v. EPA 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir.1993).
In such circumstances, “it is enough that the Agency’s construction is reasonable.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 , 1141 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citing Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1527 (D.C.Cir.1993)).
To allow the plaintiffs to raise concerns with the loan participation issue in litigation would undermine “the notion of deference to agency interpretations of law embodied in Chevron .... ” See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993) (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-45 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 ).
green
National Mining Ass'n v. Chao (2001)
Council, 25 F.3d at 1073; Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993).
green
Banner Health v. Sebelius (2015)
The Court notes that, even in the facial challenge posture, "the waiver rule would not bar a facial challenge if the agency has actually addressed the issue, either sua sponte or at the behest of another party.” Koretoff, 707 F.3d at 400 n. 3 (Williams, J., concurring) (citing Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1529 (D.C.Cir. 1993)). 25 .
green
American Forest Resource Council v. Ashe (2013)
Council, 435 U.S. 519, 551 , 98 S.Ct. 1197 , 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978))); Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir.1993) (finding argument that rule violated statute was waived).
green
Koretoff v. Schaefer (2012)
Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
per curiam
green
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion (2005)
Agency, 997 F.2d 1520, 1526 (D.C.
green
Shays v. Federal Election Commission (2004)
While it is true that “the literal meaning of a statute need not be followed where the precise terms lead to absurd or futile results, or where failure to allow a de minimis exemption is contrary to the primary legislative goal,” EDF, 82 F.3d at 466 (quoting State of Ohio v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 997 F.2d 1520, 1535 (D.C.Cir.1993)), the FEC, which has the burden on this matter, has failed to demonstrate that such effects would result in the absence of its de …
Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1525 (D.C.Cir.1993).
green
Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.—Conn. (1994)
State of Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1525 (D.C.Cir.1993).
green
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Edison Electric Ins… (1994)
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308 (D.C.Cir.1991).
green
Nick Koretoff v. Tom Vilsack (2013)
See, e.g., Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520 , 1528–29 (D.C.
finding waived argument that rule violated statute
green
Melinda Birt v. Surface Transportation Board, Union Pacific Railroad Company and City of Nampa, Idaho, Interv… (1996)
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308 (D.C.Cir.1991).
green
Indianapolis Power & Light Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Defense Fu… (1995)
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1527 (D.C.Cir.1993) (where agency regulation "represents a reasonable and permissible construction of the statute," court will defer under Chevron ).
See, e.g., Ohio v. EPA 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308 (D.C.Cir.1991).
Council v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 1074 (D.C.Cir.1994); see also Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308-09 (D.C.Cir.1991).
green
Nuc Engy Inst Inc v. EPA (2004)
Cir. 1994); see also Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308 (D.C.Cir.1991); Washington Ass'n for Television & Children v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677 , 680 (D.C.Cir.1983) 2 The APA provides in relevant part: (b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register ...
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1528 (D.C.Cir.1993); Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 , 1308 (D.C.Cir.1991); Washington Ass’n for Television & Children v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 680 (D.C.Cir.1983). .
green
Huls America Inc. v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, and the Environmental Protection Agency (1996)
See State of Ohio v. U.S.E.PA., 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir.1993).
See Ohio, 997 F.2d at 1536 ; Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 , 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82 ; see also Western Nebraska Resources Council v. EPA, 943 F.2d 867 , 870 (8th Cir.1991) (upholding exemption as “permissible” construction of statute, and citing both Alabama Power and Chevron).
See Ohio, 997 F.2d at 1535 ; Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 , 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82 ; see also Western Nebraska Resources Council v. EPA, 943 F.2d 867 , 870 (8th Cir.1991) (upholding exemption as "permissible" construction of statute, and citing both Alabama Power and Chevron).
green
Charles G. Dicola v. Food and Drug Administration (1996)
See State of Ohio v. U.S.E.P.A., 997 F.2d 1520, 1528-29 (D.C.Cir.1993) (interests in agency autonomy and judicial efficiency both served by extending waiver doctrine to “purely legal" statutory interpretation claim not raised during rulemaking).
green
Arent v. Shalala (1995)
See, e.g., Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1534-35 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam) (The court upheld an EPA regulation that imposed a de minimis gloss on a statutory provision that required the agency to conduct periodic reviews of remedial actions taken in response to hazardous waste threats.).
green
Arent v. Shalala (1995)
See, e.g., Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1534-35 (D.C.Cir.1993) (per curiam) (The court upheld an EPA regulation that imposed a de minimis gloss on a statutory provision that required the agency to conduct periodic reviews of remedial actions taken in response to hazardous waste threats.).
green
Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Clarke (1995)
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1533 (D.C.Cir.1993).
green
Dioxin/organochlorine Center Columbia River United, and Longview Fibre Co., Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. Chuck C… (1995)
See Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1533 (D.C.Cir.1993).
green
General Electric Co. v. Jackson (2009)
See 40 C.F.R. § 300.430 (e)(9)(iii); see also Ohio v. EPA 997 F.2d 1520, 1531 (D.C.Cir.1993) (noting that cost is given less weight in remedy selection than some of the other nine factors).
green
General Electric Co. v. Browner (2009)
See 40 C.F.R. § 300.430 (e)(9)(iii); see also Ohio v. EPA, 997 F.2d 1520, 1531 (D.C.
noting that cost is given less weight in remedy selection than some of the other nine factors
green
Opinion No. (2002)
First, although CERCLA, like RATFA, contains no express authorization for the EPA to impose deed restrictions, the regulations implementing CERCLA do. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430 (a)(1)(iii)(D) (authorizing the use of "institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants"); see also State of Ohio v. U.S.E.P.…
holding that "institutional controls (such as fences and deed restrictions)" might be used "as a sole remedy at Superfund sites" so long as they "meet the threshold requirement of protectiveness" of human health and the environment