La. R.S. » RS

La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§2004. Definitions

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1990–2008 · leading case: Wilson v. Davis
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. Davis (2008) lactapp · cites it 2× “R.S. 30:2004(14), [11] then DEQ, *1060 pursuant to La.”
Consolidated Companies, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad (2007) ca5 · cites it 2× “R.S. 30:2004(13) (emphasis added). Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13).”
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (1990) lactapp “A variance is a special authorization to operate in violation of the law or a permit, and contemplates that the party obtaining the variance will make progress toward compliance with the air quality regulations.”
Margone, L.L.C. v. Addison Resources, Inc. (2004) lactapp “We deny Bass’ writ on the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action/prematurity concerning the LEQA claim. The trial court correctly denied these exceptions.”
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (1990) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(7). La.R.S. 30:2056 gives to the potential violator a legal remedy authorizing noncompliance with the air quality regulations for a limited period of time, and thereby relieves the violator from the penalties prescribed for noncompliance.”
Sierra Club v. Givens (1997) lactapp · cites it 2× “R.S. 30:2004(21) to be a "failure to comply with the requirements of [the EQA and] the rules issued under [the EQA].”
In Re Shintech (1999) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(16). No adjudication occurs in the permit approval process until after a permit has been issued and either the applicant or an aggrieved party requests an administrative adjudicatory hearing pursuant to La.”
Consolidated Co Inc v. Union Pacific RR Co (2007) ca5 · cites it 2× “R.S. 30:2004(13) (emphasis added). Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13).”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004(13) — 3 cases
Consolidated Companies, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad (2007) ca5 “R.S. 30:2004(13) (emphasis added). Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13).”
Margone, L.L.C. v. Addison Resources, Inc. (2004) lactapp “We deny Bass’ writ on the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action/prematurity concerning the LEQA claim. The trial court correctly denied these exceptions.”
Consolidated Co Inc v. Union Pacific RR Co (2007) ca5 “R.S. 30:2004(13) (emphasis added). Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13).”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004(14) — 3 cases
Wilson v. Davis (2008) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(14), [11] then DEQ, *1060 pursuant to La.”
Consolidated Companies, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad (2007) ca5 “R.S. 30:2004(13) (emphasis added). Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13).”
Consolidated Co Inc v. Union Pacific RR Co (2007) ca5 “R.S. 30:2004(13) (emphasis added). Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13).”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004(16) — 1 case
In Re Shintech (1999) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(16). No adjudication occurs in the permit approval process until after a permit has been issued and either the applicant or an aggrieved party requests an administrative adjudicatory hearing pursuant to La.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004(21) — 1 case
Sierra Club v. Givens (1997) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(21) to be a "failure to comply with the requirements of [the EQA and] the rules issued under [the EQA].”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004(7) — 2 cases
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (1990) lactapp “A variance is a special authorization to operate in violation of the law or a permit, and contemplates that the party obtaining the variance will make progress toward compliance with the air quality regulations.”
Matter of Marine Shale Processors, Inc. (1990) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(7). La.R.S. 30:2056 gives to the potential violator a legal remedy authorizing noncompliance with the air quality regulations for a limited period of time, and thereby relieves the violator from the penalties prescribed for noncompliance.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 30:2004(8) — 1 case
Sierra Club v. Givens (1997) lactapp “R.S. 30:2004(21) to be a "failure to comply with the requirements of [the EQA and] the rules issued under [the EQA].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.