42 U.S.C. § 4910
Enforcement
For the purpose of this section, each day of violation of any paragraph of section 4909(a) of this title shall constitute a separate violation of that section.
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought by and in the name of the United States to restrain any violations of section 4909(a) of this title.
The term “person,” as used in this section, does not include a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–609 redesignated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1979–2012 · leading case: S. Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012).
S. Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012). “§223 (b); see also 42 U. S. C. §4910 (b). Rather, as in many other similar statutes, the statute here sets forth the crime and kinds of punishments (fine and imprison ment), while separately specifying facts that determine the maximum punishment of one kind (fines).”
Chrysler Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 600 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “4(f) as unnecessary, asserting that any violation of a manufacturer’s duty to allow a warranted entry could be dealt with by exercise of the enforcement powers conferred by § 11 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4910 (1976). 43 Fed.Reg. 27989 (1978).”
Atlas Copco, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 642 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “59 (1977), from § 11, 42 U.S.C. § 4910 (1976). . 42 U.S.C. § 4905 (c)(1) (1976).”
Puerto Rico Ex Rel. Sec'y of Just. v. Rumsfeld, 180 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2002). “42 U.S.C. § 4910 . The Enforcement section permits criminal and civil penalties for violations of 42 U.”
Harnischfeger Corp. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 515 F. Supp. 1310 (E.D. Wis. 1981). “The defendants have counterclaimed, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4910 (c), for enforcement of the test orders.”
Atlas Copco, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 206 U.S. App. D.C. 53 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “59 (1977), from § 11, 42 U.S.C. § 4910 (1976). . 42 U.S.C. § 4905 (c)(1) (1976).”
Christie v. Miller, 719 P.2d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that federal law preempts the power of state courts to grant the injunctive relief requested.”
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.