FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Environmental

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.

Illinois Dunesland Pres. Soc'y v. Illinois Dep't. of Natural Res.

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government Law) In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state officials involved in the management of a Illinois Beach State Park and the state agency that operates the park charging infringement of free speech, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed as the denial of display rack space for plaintiff's pamphlets warning of asbestos in the park may risk the appearance of endorsing an opinion that the defendants do not believe, and if they were to display their own pamphlet countering plaintiff's, this would have the effect of giving it legitimacy which the defendants are not obligated to acknowledge.

US v. Milner

Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Environmental Law, Indian Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Water Law) In an action against certain waterfront homeowners for common law trespass and violations of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act, because the ambulatory tideland property boundary came to intersect shore defense structures the homeowners erected, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) the U.S. owned the tidelands at issue and held them in trust for an Indian tribe; 2) because both the upland and tideland owners had a vested right to gains from the ambulation of the boundary, the homeowners could not permanently fix the property boundary, thereby depriving the Indians of tidelands that they would otherwise gain; and 3) the intent requirement for common law trespass was satisfied because the government requested that the encroaching parts of the structures be removed, but the homeowners failed to do so.

California Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dist.

Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Construction, Environmental Law, Government Law) In a challenge to two rules adopted by respondent-Air Pollution Control District (District), trial court's judgment in favor of District is affirmed as the District had the power to adopt the indirect source review (ISR), intended to encourage developers to reduce indirect pollution caused by new development projects, and the fees imposed pursuant to those rules are valid regulatory fees.

Orange Cty. Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp.

Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Oil & Gas Law, Per Curiam, Public Utilities) In a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order denying petitioner's motion to remand the action to state court, the petition is denied where: 1) the court of appeals' prior opinion did not preclude the district court's conclusion that petitioners failed to file a timely motion for remand, because the purportedly erroneous removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1452(a) did not implicate the district court's subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) any challenge to the district court's subject matter jurisdiction was best addressed on direct appeal, rather than by a writ of mandamus.

Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Public Utilities) In an action seeking abatement of defendants' ongoing contributions to the public nuisance of global warming, the dismissal of the complaint is vacated where: 1) plaintiffs' claims did not present non-justiciable political questions; 2) plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring their claims; 3) plaintiffs stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; 4) plaintiffs' claims were not displaced by the Clean Air Act; and 5) the discretionary function exception did not provide defendant Tennessee Valley Authority with immunity from suit.

Provincial Gov't. of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law, International Law) In an action by a Philippine island claiming that an American company polluted its waters, dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds is reversed where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the act of state doctrine because none of the conduct by the Philippine government referenced by defendants was essential to any of the plaintiff's causes of action.

Nat'l Paint & Coatings Ass'n. Inc. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Consumer Products, Environmental Law, Manufacturing) In plaintiff's action against an Air Quality Management District (district), challenging the district's 2002 amendments to its rule limiting the amount of volatile organic compounds allowed in various kinds of paint and coatings, denial of plaintiff's petition for administrative writ of mandate is affirmed except where: 1) as to the quick-dry enamels and rust preventive categories of coatings, the matter is remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether there is any current state of the art technology available to comply with the district's 2006 limits on volatile compounds; and 2) if the trial court determines that there is not, the trial court shall grant the relief requested by petitioner as to these two categories of coatings only.

US v. Starnes

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 3d Cir., Construction, Criminal Law & Procedure, Environmental Law, Evidence, Government Contracts, Government Law, Sentencing) District court's sentence and conviction of defendants for, inter alia, knowingly violating EPA work practice standards for the handling and disposal of regulated asbestos-containing material, is affirmed where: 1) evidence supports a finding that defendant was an operator of the project within the meaning of the Clean Air Act; 2) the evidence was sufficient to establish falsity, federal-government jurisdiction, and the necessary elements of an 18 U.S.C. section 1001(a) violation; and 3) defendants' various challenges to the district court's determination of their respective sentences is rejected.