Sed, Inc. v. City of Dayton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the discharge of pollutants extends to indirect, accidental, and unintentional additions of pollutants to navigable waters
• refusing to find preemption in the Toxic Substances Control Act where reverse preemption clause was present
• the § 2605(e) rules do “impose a requirement described in subsection (a)(6) of § 2605,” i.e., disposal restrictions and prohibitions. The parenthetical in no sense requires that nonpreemptive federal regulations actually be enacted under § 2605(a)(6)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).