The court holds that defendant violated the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) by refusing two National Marine Fisheries Service agents access to inspect his catch and by physically threatening one of them, and upholds an assessment against defendant of $50,000 in civil penalties. The co...

The court holds that two Connecticut cities are not entitled to intervene in a Federal Water Pollution Control Act citizen suit brought to enforce a sewage abatement order. The court first holds that the cities may not intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 24(a)(2) in an...

Affirming the district court injunction, 15 ELR 20243, the court rules that appellant's diking, draining, and water diverting activities, conducted in a wetland on his property so as to make the area suitable for upland crops, do not fall under any of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act §404(f)...

The court holds that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under either the federal question statute or the Price-Anderson Act to consider a public liability action arising out of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident for recovery of punitive damages under state law. The court...

The court holds that a conveyance by a trustee in bankruptcy of a hazardous waste facility was not an impermissible abandonment of property designed to avoid cleanup liability and response costs incurred by Tennessee at the facility are not entitled to priority as administrative expenses under §503...

The court rules that §101(20)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which excludes from the definition of "owner or operator" of a hazardous substance disposal facility one holding indicia of ownership primarily to protect a security interest, doe...

In the toxic tort case concerning the Woburn, Massachusetts, toxic waste site, the court rules that plaintiffs may recover for emotional distress resulting from subclinical immune system damage, but not for distress resulting from illnesses suffered by family members, and that plaintiffs may recover...

The court holds that §18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and the Hazard Communication Standard do not preempt Akron's workplace right-to-know ordinance, and that the ordinance does not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The court first holds that §18...

The court rules that a conditional operating permit issued by the county air quality control board creates a property interest subject to procedural due process protection. The court holds, however, that the county did not deprive appellant of that property. A letter from an air quality control offi...

The court rules that the violation of a statutory requirement to obtain a permit or of the terms of a permit supports an action for negligence per se for contamination of plaintiff's groundwater by improper storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The court first notes that plaintiff's failure to br...