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

Moore v. State

The court holds that the Alaska mining commissioner permissibly nullified the mining rights acquired by a mining claims locator on state-selected federal lands. The court first holds that the commissioner did not err in finding that the locator was not qualified to conduct business in Alaska and, th...

United States v. Shumway

The court reverses a district court summary judgment decision that ordered the owners of unpatented mill site claims in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona to remove themselves and all their things from the sites and to restore the sites to their natural condition. The government sought to evict th...

Bragg v. Robertson

The court accepts and enters a consent decree between a citizen group and West Virginia's environmental agency that commits the agency to strengthen the application and oversight of the state's surface coal mining program authorized under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The g...

New York City Envtl. Justice Alliance v. Giuliani

The court holds that environmental groups did not show that New York City's plan to sell or bulldoze lots containing community gardens would have an impermissible adverse impact on minority communities. The groups opposed the city's plan claiming that it would violate U.S. Environmental Protection A...

South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection

The court holds that because Title VI proscribes only intentional discrimination, residents of a predominantly minority community do not have a right to enforce through 42 U.S.C. §1983 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Title VI §602 disparate impact discrimination regulations agai...

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Norton

The court affirms in part and vacates in part a district court's award of attorney fees to environmental groups that sought to rescind new mining permits issued to a company that owned a mine in violation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The U.S. Department of the Interior'...

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Kempthorne

The Fourth Circuit held that an environmental group was entitled to attorney fees in their action challenging an OSM decision that resulted in a remand to the agency for additional investigation. The group filed a citizen complaint with the OSM alleging that a reclaimed surface mining site, which ha...

Cox v. Dallas, City of

The court upholds a lower court's summary judgment and bench trial rulings in favor of a city that was sued by homeowners for failing to police the operation of an illegal dump near their homes. The homeowners argued that the city violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) §3604(a) because the dump makes ...

High Hopes and Failed Expectations: The Environmental Record of the 103d Congress

When the 103d Congress convened on January 5, 1993, many observers believed that it would make up for the dismal environmental record of its predecessor. The 102d Congress had tried and failed to reauthorize the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Its attempt to elevate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a cabinet-level department had been blocked in the House of Representatives, and its attempt to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 had been blocked in both houses.

Narrowing the Roads of Private Cost Recovery: Recent Developments Limiting the Recovery of Private Response Costs Under CERCLA §107

Editors' Summary: Despite adding the §113(f) "contribution" provision to CERCLA in 1986, Congress did not indicate whether the section was meant to supplement private parties' efforts to recover response costs form other potentially responsib parties's efforts to recover response costs form other potentially responsible parties under CERCLA §107 or was meant to preclude such cost recovery actions. More and more courts that address this issue are requiring plaintiffs to file §113(f) actions.