Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Shell Oil Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991)


Facts

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to (1) identify and classify nine characteristics typical of hazardous wastes and (2) provide a list of wastes definitively determined to be hazardous. The EPA’s proposed regulation would treat non-listed wastes as non-hazardous, as long as testing showed none of the nine identified characteristics. The listed hazardous wastes would be subject to regulation, but waste generators could elect to perform tests demonstrating that a presumptively hazardous waste should be exempt. During the comment period, industry participants raised generalized concerns about the proposed rules, including the proposed listing system. The EPA also indicated that it would provide a procedure for de-listing wastes improperly listed as presumptively hazardous. After notice and comment, the EPA issued two final rules that significantly changed the regulatory scheme initially proposed. First, the mixture rule provided that any mixture including a listed hazardous waste was presumptively hazardous. Second, the derived-from rule provided that any residue derived from the treatment of hazardous wastes was also hazardous. Shell Oil Company and other companies (plaintiffs) petitioned for review of the EPA’s final rules, arguing that the rules had been issued in violation of the procedural requirements for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.