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

Green Ridge, City of v. Kreisel

The court holds that a trial court incorrectly concluded that a city ordinance regulating junkyards was a zoning ordinance subject to notice-and-hearing requirements. A junkyard owner who had been cited for several violations of the ordinance claimed that the ordinance was inapplicable because it wa...

United States v. Amoco Chem. Co.

The court holds that neither an amended Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) consent decree between a waste handler and the United States nor a previous trust agreement with other CERCLA defendants bound a waste handler to sign a new trust agreement. The dis...

Paterson, City of v. Passaic County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders

The court holds that a local utilities authority was not authorized under the New Jersey Municipal and Counties Utilities Authorities Law (MCUAL) to charge prior users of the authority's waste disposal facilities an environmental investment credit (EIC). The authority imposed the EIC in order to liq...

Illinois v. Grigoleit Co.

The court holds on motions for summary judgment that a manufacturer and a newspaper company are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for allowing a landowner to dispose of their waste on his property without a permit. The court first holds t...

Johnson v. James Langley Operating Co.

The court reverses and remands a district court decision that landowners who sued oil companies in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) suit did not incur response costs in acting to contain a proven release of hazardous substances. The court fist holds th...

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...

Comment on <em>Rethinking the ESA to Reflect Human Dominion Over Nature</em>

Above my desk at work, I keep a button that reads "Save the Ugly Animals Too." It is a reminder that more than just the charismatic megafauna, such as wolves and bald eagles and grizzly bears and whales, are worth conserving. From the standpoint of protecting the web of life, including the ecosystems that benefit us all by providing services such as water purification, flood control, nurseries for our fish and shellfish, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, it is often as important to conserve the lesser known species, the cogs and wheels that drive those ecosystems.

Above All, Try <i>Something</i>: Two Small Steps Forward for Endangered Species

In a recent essay, Katrina Wyman suggests four substantial reforms aimed at improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and furthering species recovery: (1) decoupling listing decisions from permanent species protection;3 (2) requiring the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement cost-effective species protection measures;5 (3) prioritizing funding for biological hotspots;6 and (4) establishing additional protected areas.

Wyman's <em>Rethinking the ESA</em>: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedies

Katrina Wyman has penned a bold, provocative, and innovative critique of the capability of the Endangered Species Act (ESA or Act) to meet the challenges of an increasingly human-dominated world. Bold because the ESA, perhaps more than any other environmental law, has impassioned champions who disfavor dissent. It is no easy task to critique a law with the truly noble mission to preserve life other than our own, particularly when the law's basic premise is that the mission's success is critically dependent on abundant and altruistic actions by us.

Tomlinson v. Alameda, County of

A California appellate court held that a subdivision development project is not exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The county deemed the project exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemption for in-fill development. But the proposed subdivision...