The court holds that piercing the corporate veil to assert personal jurisdiction in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) actions is a federal question determined by traditional tests for piercing the corporate veil, CERCLA §106 does not authorize nationwide...

The court holds that the plaintiffs have not shown misrepresentation, newly discovered evidence, or manifest injustice warranting relief from a Supreme Court decision. The Court had held that the Secretary of Commerce has discretion under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation Management Act to decide th...

The court holds that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) refusal to remove bacitracin and phthalate esters from the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) list of extremely hazardous substances was arbitrary and capricious. Both bacitracin and phthalate esters had been ...

The court rules that the Endangered Species Act's (ESA's) 60-day notice requirement for citizen suits is jurisdictional and applies to emergency actions. The First Circuit's strict reading of the 60-day notice requirements in other environmental statutes applies to the ESA's virtually identical noti...

The court holds that regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior in 1982 to clarify the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's (SMCRA's) two-acre exemption may not be applied retroactively to nullify an exemption granted by Virginia to a deep coal mining operation. The 1982 regulation...

The court holds that the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the use of herbicides to control noxious weeds on public lands in five northwest states satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA's) worst...

The court holds that plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Plaintiffs challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) "backfit" rule, which the court vacated in an earlier ruling. The court holds that plaintiffs were the prevailing party, since...

The court holds that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision to permit the continued sale and use of existing stocks of chlordane and heptachlor, pursuant to an agreement in which the manufacturer voluntarily cancelled registrations, was arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. ...

The court holds that defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation is strictly, jointly, and severally liable under §107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for response costs incurred by the United States and New York at the Love Canal waste disposa...

The court affirms a district court decision, 17 ELR 20511, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Maryland county regulations requiring commercial pesticide applicators to post sprayed areas and provide notification of pesticide hazards because FIFRA al...