FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Environmental

North Carolina v. EPA

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) North Carolina's petition for review of a final rule of the EPA removing the northern part of the State of Georgia from EPA's regulations under its national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone measured during a one-hour period, the petition is dismissed where reinstating Georgia under that standard would not lower Georgia's emissions and thus North Carolina failed to meet the redressability requirement for Article III standing.

Hoffman St., LLC v. City of W. Hollywood

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Constitutional Law, Construction, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In plaintiffs-developers' suit against the city challenging its extension of an interim ordinance restricting development in areas zoned for multifamily residential uses raising various statutory and constitutional claims, judgment denying plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate and denying any relief on their complaint is reversed where: 1) trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate as to the first count was improper as the city council failed to make findings required under Gov. Code section 65858(c) upon extending the interim ordinance and the extension therefore was contrary to law and invalid; 2) although it was improper for the trial court to deny plaintiffs' petition on their first count, plaintiffs have not shown prejudicial error in the denial of relief on their Permit Streamlining Act claim, and a CEQA violation claim is moot; and 3) trial court's entry of judgment on counts four through seven is reversed as plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to be heard on those counts which deprived them of their right to a fair hearing.

Levine v. Vilsack

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Agriculture, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law) In an action challenging the USDA's enunciation of its position in the Federal Register that there was no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, plaintiffs' appeal is remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter where plaintiffs could not satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing because the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act contained no statutory enforcement mechanism.

Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Property Law & Real Estate, Remedies) In plaintiff-trust's suit against defendant-Exxon claiming contamination of its water supply and other allegations, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's order substituting Cook Endeavors for the Trust as plaintiff in this action is affirmed; and 2) peremptory writ of mandate is issued directing the superior court to vacate its order granting Exxon's motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff's punitive damages claim.

National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In a Federal Land and Policy Management Act challenge to the exchange of certain private lands for several parcels of land surrounding a mine site and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM should have taken the reasonably probable use of public lands for a landfill into consideration as part of the highest and best use analysis; and 2) as a result of its unreasonably narrow purpose and need statement, the BLM necessarily considered an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the BLM's Record of Decision never became effective, and could not serve as the agency's final action; and 2) the record as a whole established that the BLM's interpretation of "full consideration," as evinced by the analyses in the environmental impact statement at issue, was permissible under 43 U.S.C. section 1716(a).

US v. Albert Inv. Co.

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government Law) In an appeal from the district court's denial of appellant's motion to intervene in an action brought by the U.S. under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the order is reversed where the proposed consent decree would eliminate appellant's contribution right as to the settling defendants, and thus appellant had an interest in the outcome of the action.

Sustainable Transp. Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Ass'n of Gov'ts

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Transportation) Denial of plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the approval of Measure A, which imposes a retail sales and use tax to fund transportation projects in the county, is affirmed as a prior CEQA environmental review was not required as Measure A falls within the funding mechanism exclusion of the CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) because it does not constitute a binding commitment to construct the projects set forth in the investment plan.

Bus Riders Union v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Agency

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Transportation) Denial of plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate in their challenge of the use by defendant-Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) of a statutory rate-setting exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is affirmed where: 1) the administrative record contains substantial evidence that MTA's fare increase was enacted for one or more permissible purposes under Pub. Resources Code section 21080(b)(8); and 2) the MTA's findings satisfy the specificity requirement in that provision.

Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth.

Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Construction, Environmental Law) In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in land development near a reservoir and the environmental impact of increased boating on, and community use of, reservoir water, dismissal of the case without prejudice is affirmed as plaintiff failed to demonstrate standing to bring its claim alleging ongoing harm to its members' aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the reservoir.

California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Environmental Law, Government Law) In plaintiff's action against defendant-district concerning its adoption of Rule 1406 claiming that it was exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, judgment of the trial court is reversed as there was insufficient evidence to support the District's finding that the adoption of Rule 1406 was within the Class 8 categorical exemption.

Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Construction, Contracts, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law) In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR.

Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Indian Law) In an Indian tribe's challenge to a decision approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to lease a plot of Passamaquoddy land for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas facility, claiming that the BIA approved the lease in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, dismissal of the case is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not present its argument in its first appeal and its request for relief from the mandate that exhaustion was mandatory unless an exception applied requires a showing of both blatant error and a threat of serious injustice if the court adheres to the mandate; and 2) no such showings have been made.

Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Albany

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(N.Y., Administrative Law, Construction, Environmental Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In an action challenging a city's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination regarding a proposed municipal project, the Appellate Division's order annulling the determination is reversed where: 1) a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge government actions that threaten that resource; and 2) the government was not required to scrutinize every possible environmental issue, and the failure of the city's environmental impact statement to discuss the possible impact of rezoning on certain rare species was therefore not a fatal flaw.

Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. Rhode Island Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt.

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Food & Beverages, Government Law) In plaintiffs' case challenging the constitutionality of regulations promulgated by defendants imposing restrictions on lobster fishing, district court appropriately exercised federal question jurisdiction over the case and its judgment is affirmed and the merits ruling is upheld for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion.

AMW Materials Testing, Inc. v. Babylon

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In an action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to recover hazardous material cleanup costs, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants were not "operators" of the facility at issue at the time the hazardous materials at issue were released; and 2) emergency response actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 9607(d)(2) cannot constitute an affirmative defense to section 9607(a) liability.