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

Black Horse Lane Assocs. v. Dow Chem. Corp.

The court affirms a district court order that dismissed a current property owner's contracts, implied covenant of good faith, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) claims against the previous owner. Before selling the property to the current owner in 1985...

Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Menasha Corp.

The court reverses a district court decision granting summary judgment in favor of two corporations in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) action brought by a paper manufacturers' association seeking contribution for costs incurred in the investigation an...

<i>Kelo</i>'s Legacy

Editors' Summary: Rather than signaling the death of private property rights, as media and the public initially feared, the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London ushered in an era of increased state and federal protection for private property. In this Article, Daniel H. Cole examines Kelo's repercussions for urban redevelopment. He begins with a description of the case, and then examines the resulting backlash from the media and public opinion, which decried the decision as unduly expanding eminent domain powers.

Confusion About "Change in Value" and "Return on Equity" Approaches to the <i>Penn Central</i> Test in Temporary Takings

Editors' Summary: In this Article, William W. Wade evaluates the conceptual measurement of economic impact within the Penn Central test for income-producing properties recently adjudicated in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The discussion considers measurement of the denominator of the takings fraction related to Penn Central's parcel as a whole and whether it differs between permanent and temporary takings.

Environmental Justice and the Constitution

In a recent essay, David Coursen asks an important and unexamined question: Are environmental justice policies, which seek to avoid disproportionate environmental burdens on minority and poor communities, on a "collision course" with the Equal Protection Clause? In concluding that a potential collision is more illusory than real, Coursen offers a number of reasons why governmental actions to promote environmental justice have not been challenged in court and, even if they were to be, would not be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.

United States v. Magnesium Corp. of Am.

The Tenth Circuit vacated a lower court decision granting summary judgment in favor of a magnesium company on claims that its handling of waste violated RCRA Subtitle C. The company argued that EPA exempted the five wastes at issue from Subtitle C&rsquo;s strictures in a prior interpretation of its ...

3883 Conn., L.L.C. v. District of Columbia

The court holds that although it has jurisdiction to hear an individual's claim for damages against a city for disrupting his construction project, the individual's due process rights were not violated. The individual was granted the necessary permits to begin preparing the site for the construction...

Abundiz v. Explorer Pipeline Co.

The court holds that individuals' Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state-law claims against a gasoline corporation that spilled 600,000 gallons of gasoline onto the individuals' property and a surrounding lake and creek are not barred because the state has not engaged in a Comprehen...

Taubman Realty Group Ltd. Partnership v. Mineta

The court holds that the owner of a retail development lacked standing to bring Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions against the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) for failing to prevent a county from approving the...