Legal Opinion
Friedman v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 15, 2007No. 05-15664PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiffs Morton Friedman and Schmitt Construction appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment upholding the decision of the Environmental Appeals Board. The Board had found plaintiffs’ removal of asbestos from their demolition site violated the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7412, 7414, and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 C.F.R. Part 61, subpart M. Plaintiffs contend that they did not have fair notice of the NESHAP regulations. We now affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment upholding agency…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Newell v. SauserCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Jerry Wayne GILBERT, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; Federal Aviation Administration, RespondentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- State of California, Ex Rel Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, the City of Santa Clara Transmission Agency of Northern California (Tanc) Northern California Power Agency, Petitioner-Intervenor v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pg & E National Energy Group Holdings Corporation, Respondent-Intervenor. Northern California Power Agency, Transmission Agency of Northern California, City of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto, Modesto Irrigation District (Mid), Petitioner-Intervenor v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Energy Group, Respondent-IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Carpenter v. MinetaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dinan v. SanDisk LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020