Source: https://masseygail.com/experience/experience-environmental.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:05:55+00:00

Document:
General Electric in a case presenting the question of "arranger" liability under the federal Superfund statute for parties selling useful products in commerce. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009).
Hercules (later acquired by Ashland, Inc.) in a case involving the retroactive imposition of CERCLA liability and EPA’s application of a cancer potency factor for dioxin exposure. U.S. v. Hercules, Inc., 247 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Vertac, 453 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2006), 127 S. Ct. 2098 (2007). See 2007 WL 989151, 2006 WL 3775972 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit).
General Electric in a case presenting the questions whether EPA’s interpretation of Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act effected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and whether EPA, in order to engage in reasoned decisionmaking, must consider the costs and risk trade-offs of regulations promulgated under Section 109. Browner v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). See 2000 WL 1298958, 2000 WL 1010086 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).
The National Automobile Dealers Association in a case presenting the question whether the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 preempts California greenhouse gas emissions rules for motor vehicles. Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, No. 07-4342 (2d Cir. filed Mar. 21, 2008) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).
Amici Members of Congress in support of the Environmental Protection Agency in a case involving the decision of the EPA to deny California’s application for a waiver of federal preemption pursuant to Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7543, regarding state greenhouse gas regulation of motor vehicle emissions. State of California v. United States EPA, Nos. 08-1178 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce in a case presenting the constitutionality of state environmental regulation authorizing state agencies to demand that owners of Superfund sites perform response activities without the opportunity for a hearing. Pactiv Corp. v. Chester, 455 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
The Washington Legal Foundation and Kansas Grain and Feed Association in a case presenting the question whether the remedial scheme of the Superfund statute (CERCLA), allowing for issuance of unilateral administrative orders prior to a hearing, violated procedural due process. Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (D. Kan. 2007).
A group of energy-related companies in a case presenting the question whether federal courts may entertain common-law public nuisance suits for the alleged “tort” of contributing to global climate change. American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S.Ct. 2527 (2011).
General Electric in a case presenting the question whether the Superfund statute’s scheme for unilateral administrative orders violates procedural due process because it deprives potentially responsible parties of property without a prior hearing. General Elec. Co. v. Jackson, No. 10-871 (U.S. Supreme Court).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7543
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.