West Penn Power Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lee M. Thomas, Administrator

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining, in Clean Air Act case, the need “to avoid a de facto requirement of protective appeals”
• explaining, in Clean Air Act case, the need “to avoid a de facto requirement of protective appeals”
• explaining, in Clean Air Act case, the need “to avoid a de facto requirement of protective appeals”
• characterizing Locomotive Engineers as explaining that “if the running of the limitations period were not stayed, litigants petitioning for reconsideration would be required to file ‘protective appeals’ ”
• “allowing a petitioner to apply to both the court and the agency at the same time[ ] ... could only lead to waste of resources on the part of the agency, the court, or both, without any countervailing benefit”
• no principled distinction between finality for time in which to appeal and for conferring appellate jurisdiction; time for filing appeal begins to run when final judgment entered precisely because petitioner then has opportunity for judicial review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).