Legal Opinion
Bethlehem Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 4, 1982No. 81-1489PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Parties to an agency proceeding generally must exhaust their administrative remedies before they can resort to the courts. In this case, a company that the Environmental Protection Agency charged with exceeding air pollution standards contends it should be excused from the exhaustion requirement. Since a statutory penalty accrues each day the alleged violation continues, the company fears that its potential financial liability may force it to accede to EPA rather than risk an unfavorable outcome after prolonged, good faith litigation. We do not consider…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Weinberger v. SalfiSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
- Rosa v. Resolution Trust CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- LaVallee Northside Civic Ass'n v. Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.