Hancock v. Train

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating also that “an authorization of state regulation [of a federal entity] is found only when and to the extent there is 'a clear congressional mandate,’ ‘specific congressional action’ that makes this authorization of state regulation clear and unambiguous”
• legislative history of CAA section 118 suggests \requirements\ language refers only to emissions standards and compliance schedules
• legislative history of Clean Air Act discloses that various preliminary drafts and committee reports used requirements interchangeably with \emission requirements\ and \emission standards\
• re- jecting state agency’s bid to regulate a federal installation and surveying doctrines that establish that “ ‘the federal function must be left free’ of [state] regulation”
• legislative history of CAA section 118 suggests “requirements” language refers only to emissions standards and compliance schedules
• Court draws distinction between substantive requirements, such as emission limitations, and all other state implementation plan measures

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).