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

Fries, Town of v. State Water Control Bd.

The court holds that none of the parties challenging the Virginia State Water Control Board's issuance of a state pollutant discharge elimination system (SPDES) permit to the city of Galax for the building of an enlarged sewage treatment plant has standing under Virginia's Administrative Process Act...

Northern Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Lujan

The court holds that the district court, in applying the rule of reason, did not abuse its discretion in dissolving an injunction when it held that the environmental impact statements (EISs) produced by the National Park Service (NPS), concerning the impact of any possible future mining activity in ...

New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.

The court holds in a case of first impression under Delaware law that the term "contaminants" in a comprehensive general liability policy pollution exclusion clause is unambiguous and carries no implied scienter element. The court holds that when a polluter discharges contaminants, whether or not he...

Reahard v. Lee County

The court vacates and remands a magistrate judge's decision that a Florida county's land use plan resulted in a taking of waterfront property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, because the magistrate judge misapplied the legal standard for partial takings and failed ...

In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R.

The court holds that a district court properly ruled that the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT's) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) claim for response costs against the successor of a bankrupt railroad four years after the close of b...

Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. General Dynamics Corp.

The court holds that a district court erred when it interpreted pollution exclusion clauses in comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policies as not relieving an insurer of its duty to defend and reimburse an insured for its liability at hazardous waste sites. A defense industry manufactur...

Ray Indus., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

The court holds that a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notifying a potentially responsible party (PRP) that it may be liable for cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not a "suit" triggering an insurer's duty to...

Soo Line R.R. v. B.J. Carney & Co.

The court holds that the owner of a Minnesota site contaminated with hazardous substances has stated a cause of action, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), and common law, against a dissolved corpora...

Macias v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

The court holds that a lawsuit by individuals against a chemical company for damages based on injuries resulting from exposure to thorium-containing fill material was properly removed to federal court, because the chemical company brought a third-party complaint against officials of the U.S. Environ...

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the South Carolina Supreme Court directs the trial court to make specific findings of damages, commencing with the date of enactment of the 1988 state Beachfront Management Act through the date of the court's order, to compensate a landowner for a temporary dep...