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

Washington v. Time Oil Co.

The court holds that the defendant in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107 response cost action is not entitled to the innocent landowner defense as defined in CERCLA §§107(b)(3) and 101(35). The court first holds that there has been a release of h...

Christy v. Hodel

The court holds that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations prohibiting the killing of grizzly bears to protect livestock do not violate due process or equal protection. Plaintiff had been fined $2,500 in civil penalties under the ESA for knowingly killing a grizzly bear, ...

Hudson River Fishermen's Ass'n v. Westchester, County of

The court holds that plaintiff may maintain a citizen suit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) concerning a stormwater outlet allegedly discharging hazardous leachate into the Hudson River. The court first holds that the stormwater outlet may constitute a point source, but that an ...

United States v. Threet

The court rules that a person who fails to obtain a required permit under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is a "permittee" subject to a civil enforcement action under SMCRA §521(c). While SMCRA §701(18) defines a permittee as a person holding a permit, the Office of Surface ...

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA

The court holds that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly decided not to list used oil destined for recycling as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA originally had determined that used oil typically contains significant quantities of hazardo...

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Milliken & Co.

The courtholds that an insurance company is not required to defend or indemnify hazardous waste generators in an action for response costs incurred under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The generators are defendants in an action brought by the Unit...

Creppel v. Corps of Eng'rs

The court rules that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) definition of "unacceptable adverse effect" under Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) §404(c) is valid, and holds that EPA's decision to veto a flood control project pursuant to §404(c) was not arbitrary or capricious. The ...

United States v. Vineland Chem. Co.

The court holds that the operators of two surface impoundments are liable under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for continuing to conduct hazardous waste activities following their loss of interim status. In a related case, Vineland Chemical Co. v. U.S. EPA, 17 ELR 20555, the Third...

California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Marsh

The court holds that the Army Corps of Engineers' decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before issuing a permit to fill a wetland for the purpose of constructing air cargo facilities at Oakland Airport was unreasonable and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The...

Detroit Audubon Soc'y v. Detroit, City of

The court holds that four environmental groups and the government of Ontario cannot maintain actions under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) challenging Detroit's construction of a municipal waste incinerator. Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting further construction or an order ...