The court holds that the Price-Anderson Act conferred federal jurisdiction on a district court in a removal action where individuals alleged tortious injury arising from uranium mining. In two separate class action suits, over 1,000 individuals alleged personal injury and property damage arising fro...
The court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a citizen group's request for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to prevent further implementation of the early component removal plan for decommissioning the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant and to enjoin t...
The court holds that a district court lacked jurisdiction over a parent corporation's challenge to a pending U.S. Nuclear Regualatory Commission (NRC) hearing to determine whether the company was liable for cleanup costs at the facility of its subsidiary, which is an NRC licensee. The NRC attempted ...
The Ninth Circuit held that the subcellular alteration of a plaintiff's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), without pain or interference with bodily functions, is not a bodily injury within the meaning of the Price-Anderson Act. The Price-Anderson Act prohibits recovery for plaintiffs who have not suffered...
In denying a petition for review, the Tenth Circuit held that the NRC did not violate the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or NEPA when it issued a license to a company to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico. In issuing the license, NRC interpreted its regulations t...
Editors' Summary: Until recently, the regulation of chemical carcinogens and the regulation of radiological carcinogens developed independently. Different governmental agencies operating under different statutory directives were responsible for addressing the dangers from these carcinogens. As a result, different policies and practices were developed. This Article explores these differences and the record on resolving them. It first examines the history of federal regulation of chemical and radiological carcinogens and summarizes EPA's approach to risk assessments for them.
Editor's Summary: In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most recent pronouncement on the executive foreign affairs preemption doctrine in American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi. In this Article, Kimberly Breedon argues that lower courts are prone to overbroad applications of Garamendi because the Court assumed the presence of three elements when it developed the standard for executive foreign affairs preemption of state law: (1) formal source law; (2) nexus to a foreign entity; and (3) indication of intent by the executive to preempt the state law under challenge.
The court holds that a district court erred in ruling that Florida is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in a limitation of liability proceeding, but it correctly dismissed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and Florida Pollution Discharge Prevention Act claims brought against the owners of th...
The court holds that the Price-Anderson Act does not expressly prohibit the Navajo tribal court from determining its jurisdiction over tribal members' personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from uranium mining activities on the Navajo Nation Reservation. The court first holds that defenda...
The court holds that a Native American council and an environmental group lack standing under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order authorizing a Canadian power generator to sell power in the Unit...