Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

Schutz v. Thorne

The court dismissed a Florida resident's claims that three Wyoming statutes unconstitutionally limit hunting opportunities for nonresidents. The individual lacks standing to challenge the "guide statute" that creates two classes of hunters—resident and nonresident—for wilderness hunting because ...

Northwest La. Fish & Game Preserve Comm'n v. United States

The court reverses the dismissal of the Louisiana Fish & Game Preserve Commission's takings claim against the United States in a case involving a conflict between the state commission's duty to maintain the Northwest Fish and Game Preserve and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps') respo...

United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that two flow-control ordinances requiring delivery of local solid waste to a publicly owned processing facility do not discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The ordinances at issue treat in-state private business interests exactl...

Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Comm'n v. Peña

The court upholds the Secretary of Energy's interpretation of the term "provide for" within a provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act that entitles states and regional radioactive-waste disposal compacts to a rebate of their waste disposal surcharges. Plaintiff regional co...

Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.

The court dismisses a property owner's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), and state common-law claims against prior owners of the property and a state agency for r...

The Clean Water Act: What's Commerce Got to Do With It?

Few commentators doubt the value of clean, unadulterated waters teeming with varied and colorful aquatic life. The debate centers instead on more pragmatic concerns, that is, how to best accomplish the accepted imperative. Some maintain that the primary responsibility should fall on the federal government because of its insularity from regional economic and political pressures. Others suggest that states should take the lead because of their familiarity with and ability to respond to local environmental concerns. Both sides have valid points.

Property Rights and Responsibilities: Nuisance, Land-Use Regulation, and Sustainable Use

Editors' Summary: This Article addresses the effect of the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause on the government's authority to protect environmental resources. An earlier Article, published in the May 1994 of ELR, analyzed bases for government regulation provided by limitations inherent in the property right itself. In contrast, this Article focuses on an emerging doctrine of sustainable use, rooted in background principles of nuisance law and the government's complementary police power.

Property Rights, Property Roots: Rediscovering the Basis for Legal Protection of the Environment

Editors' Summary: Environmental regulation has come under increasing attack from those who argue that governmental limitations on property use violate constitutional restrictions on regulatory takings of property. The author addresses this controversy by focusing on the background limitations on owners' rights that are inherent in property law itself, as opposed to the external controls that government may impose under the doctrines of police power and nuisance.

Development Moratoria, First English Principles, and Regulatory Takings

Is an intentional temporary deprivation of the use of land not a "temporary taking"? This proposition was asserted by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The Ninth Circuit denied en banc review, despite a strong dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski. Perhaps because it had never explicated the meaning of "temporary taking," and perhaps in part because its interest was kindled by the Kozinski dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari. The question is limited to:

<i>Lingle</i>, Etc.: The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Takings Trilogy

Editors' Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on three takings cases in its 2004 term: Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Kelo v. City of New London; and San Remo Hotel, Ltd. Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco. In Lingle, the Court struck down the "substantially advance" test set forth in Agins v. City of Tiburon. Kelo, which gained attention from the media and public, upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. And San Remo involved a relatively straightforward procedural issue.