WebOrder and Amended Opinion, Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2024) ..... App. 1 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Stay and Granting Plaintiffs’ … WebCounty of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund , 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2024) ..... 2, 13, 25 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 807 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) ..... 19 Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) ... Williams v. City of Dothan, 818 F.2d 755 (11th Cir.

Post-Maui Survey of “More Stringent Than” States - New …

WebId. at 1469 (quoting Haw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 886 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2024)). The Supreme Court’s articulation of a multifactor functional equivalence test is not precisely the same. Similarly, the Court declined to adopt the “direct hydrological connection” test used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the WebNov 6, 2024 · County of Maui, Hawaii Respondent Hawaii Wildlife Fund Docket no. 18-260 Decided by Roberts Court Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Citation 590 US _ (2024) Granted Feb 19, 2024 Argued Nov 6, 2024 Decided Apr 23, … John Rapanos sought to fill in three wetland areas on his property in order to build a … how does fetch the app work

COUNTY OF MAUI v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND Supreme …

WebCounty of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through … WebHaw. Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, No. 12-00198 SOM/KJM, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131803, at *30 (D. Haw. July 15, 2024).1 The ruling holds national importance as the first instance in which a court has applied the Supreme Court’s “functional equivalent” test for when pollutant discharges that reach County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit wh… how does fezziwig differ from scrooge