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

Grand Council of the Crees v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n

The court holds that a Native American council and an environmental group lack standing under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order authorizing a Canadian power generator to sell power in the Unit...

Cooley v. United States

The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' denial of landowners' Clean Water Act §404 permit application effected a permanent taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The court first holds that the landowners' claim is ripe. Even if more information were offered by ...

Implied Private Causes of Action and the Recoverability of Damages Under the RCRA Citizen Suit Provision

Editors' Summary: Property owners often respond to solid and hazardous waste contamination of their properties by cleaning up the contamination and then seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs from responsible parties under federal and state hazardous waste laws. RCRA is one such law; however, RCRA §7002 does not explicitly provide for recovery of damages. A court faced with a RCRA §7002 citizen suit to recover cleanup costs must imply a private cause of action for damages. This Article addresses the availability of a private cause of action for damages under RCRA §7002.

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: When Does a Waste Escape RCRA Subtitle C Regulation?

Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, to regulate management of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA Subtitle C regulates hazardous waste management and Subtitle D governs nonhazardous, solid waste. In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), significantly amending and expanding RCRA Subtitle C. HSWA added to RCRA the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Program, or land ban, which bars land disposal of hazardous wastes that fail to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)-promulgated treatment standards.

Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County

The court holds that a landfill operator is entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of a county ordinance that regulates the transport of out-of-county waste into the county, and the operator may proceed on procedural and substantive due process claims against the county. The co...

Edison Elec. Inst. v. EPA

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) failed to justify application of its toxicity characteristic rule to mineral processing and electric utility wastes, and remands portions of the rule to the Agency for further proceedings. In the Resource Conservation ...

Coal Operators & Assocs. v. Babbitt

The court dismisses a coal mining association's claim against the Secretary of the Interior seeking to force the federal government to turn over approximately $1.3 billion allegedly due to the commonwealth of Kentucky under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's (SMCRA's) abandoned mine re...

Douglas County v. Babbitt

The court holds that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to the Secretary of the Interior's designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court first holds that an Oregon county has standing to challenge the Secretary's failure to comply with NEP...

Dico, Inc. v. United States

The court holds that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1500 over a manufacturer's claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for response costs the manufacturer incurred cleaning up contaminated groundwater pursuant to a U.S. Enviro...