When landowners seek to determine if a permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers to discharge dredged or fill material into waters within their property boundaries, they may first obtain a jurisdictional determination specifying whether “waters of the United States” are present. In an 8-0 judgment, Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes was a victory for landowners, concluding that an approved jurisdictional determination is a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umpress_tidal_wetlands_primer_images/1068/thumbnail.jp
This case note analyzes Sackett v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 8 F.4th 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2021), a ca...
A group of environmentalists brought suit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Uni...
When landowners seek to determine if a permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers to discha...
In United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the Supreme Court held that a “jurisdictiona...
In Resource Investments Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Court of Ap...
A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Section...
I. Introduction II. Background ... A. The Clean Water Act’s Jurisdictional Uncertainty … B. Recent R...
The Court held that NRS § 533.395 requires a party seeking relief from the cancellation of a water p...
This article deals with the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to require per...
Despite the majority’s “needlessly circuitous” route, as described by concurring Judge Brown, Sierra...
In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided novel issues in two cas...
In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “...
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted the Standing Rock Si...
On April 10, 2015, in Hawkes Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ...
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umpress_tidal_wetlands_primer_images/1068/thumbnail.jp
This case note analyzes Sackett v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 8 F.4th 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2021), a ca...
A group of environmentalists brought suit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Uni...
When landowners seek to determine if a permit is required from the Army Corps of Engineers to discha...
In United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the Supreme Court held that a “jurisdictiona...
In Resource Investments Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Court of Ap...
A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Section...
I. Introduction II. Background ... A. The Clean Water Act’s Jurisdictional Uncertainty … B. Recent R...
The Court held that NRS § 533.395 requires a party seeking relief from the cancellation of a water p...
This article deals with the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to require per...
Despite the majority’s “needlessly circuitous” route, as described by concurring Judge Brown, Sierra...
In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided novel issues in two cas...
In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “...
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted the Standing Rock Si...
On April 10, 2015, in Hawkes Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ...
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/umpress_tidal_wetlands_primer_images/1068/thumbnail.jp
This case note analyzes Sackett v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 8 F.4th 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2021), a ca...
A group of environmentalists brought suit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Uni...
Add to ORKG