Search : U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals : Environmental Law
Number of summaries found: 64
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Environmental Law |
| Title: | AMW Materials Testing, Inc. v. Babylon |
| Date: | 10/19/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-1731 |
| Summary: | In an action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to recover hazardous material cleanup costs, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants were not "operators" of the facility at issue at the time the hazardous materials at issue were released; and 2) emergency response actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 9607(d)(2) cannot constitute an affirmative defense to section 9607(a) liability. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Oil & Gas Law, Per Curiam, Public Utilities |
| Title: | Orange Cty. Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp. |
| Date: | 10/01/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-5724 |
| Summary: | In a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order denying petitioner's motion to remand the action to state court, the petition is denied where: 1) the court of appeals' prior opinion did not preclude the district court's conclusion that petitioners failed to file a timely motion for remand, because the purportedly erroneous removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1452(a) did not implicate the district court's subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) any challenge to the district court's subject matter jurisdiction was best addressed on direct appeal, rather than by a writ of mandamus. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Public Utilities |
| Title: | Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co. |
| Date: | 09/30/09 |
| Case Number: | 05-5104 |
| Summary: | In an action seeking abatement of defendants' ongoing contributions to the public nuisance of global warming, the dismissal of the complaint is vacated where: 1) plaintiffs' claims did not present non-justiciable political questions; 2) plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring their claims; 3) plaintiffs stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; 4) plaintiffs' claims were not displaced by the Clean Air Act; and 5) the discretionary function exception did not provide defendant Tennessee Valley Authority with immunity from suit. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Environmental Law |
| Title: | Coalition on W. Valley Nuclear Wastes v. Chu |
| Date: | 08/31/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-5243 |
| Summary: | In a challenge to the Department of Energy's issuance of an environmental impact statement concerning waste management activities at a project site that did not address long-term closure issues regarding the rest of the site, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the waste management activities that the Department was undertaking did not depend on the closure action for their justification; and 2) a prior stipulation entered between the parties did not curtail the Department's ability to reevaluate its strategy for completing environmental impact review. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Environmental Law |
| Title: | Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc. |
| Date: | 07/31/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-0795 |
| Summary: | In an action for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that defendant was operating a hazardous waste disposal facility without a permit in violation of 42 U.S.C. sec. 6925(a) was properly dismissed as the lead on defendant's site was not abandoned but was the result of the regular, intended use of lead shot at a shooting range, and thus defendant was not required to obtain a permit under the statute; 2) the court properly granted defendant summary judgment on the imminent and substantial endangerment claim as the fact that defendant's site exceeded RSR and SEH standards was insufficient to create a material issue of fact as to whether lead contamination on the site may present an imminent and substantial endangerment; and 3) the court properly granted summary judgment to defendant on the Clean Water Act claim as plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a material issue of fact as to whether defendant's discharges lead into jurisdictional wetlands from a point source. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Transportation |
| Title: | Natural Res. Def. Council v. FAA |
| Date: | 05/01/09 |
| Case Number: | 06-5267 |
| Summary: | Petition for review of an FAA order approving the relocation of the Panama City-Bay County International Airport to a new site is denied where: 1) the FAA complied with the procedural requirements of the Natural Environmental Policy Act in evaluating the proposal to build a new airport at the new site; and 2) the FAA's determination that that no prudent alternatives to the proposed new site existed was not arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government Law, Per Curiam |
| Title: | Coalition of Watershed Towns v. EPA |
| Date: | 12/29/08 |
| Case Number: | 07-2449, 07-3912 |
| Summary: | Towns in a watershed region of New York lack standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency. In seeking review of two of the Agency's "final actions" pertaining to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, they failed to show that their proposed injuries were likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort Law, Water Law |
| Title: | Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp. |
| Date: | 11/03/08 |
| Case Number: | 065694 |
| Summary: | In claims related to water pollution allegedly caused by operations at a factory owned and operated by defendants in Bhopal, India, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is vacated and remanded where the district court did not give plaintiffs sufficient notice to allow them to adequately respond to the converted summary judgment motion. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Environmental Law, Gaming Law, Government Law |
| Title: | Fund For Animals v. Kempthorne |
| Date: | 09/18/08 |
| Case Number: | 052603 |
| Summary: | In a claim challenging defendants' Public Resource Depredation Order on the ground that it violated treaty obligations of the United States and federal statutes by allowing employees to kill unlimited number of federally protected double-crested cormorants in New York and other states, summary judgment for defendant-government is affirmed where: 1) the Depredation Order is a reasonable method of effectuating the goals of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); 2) the Depredation Order does not conflict with treaties to which the United States is a party; 3) the Depredation Order represents one rational response to the problem of cormorant depredation based on evidence to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); 4) FWS complied with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting the Depredation Order; and 5) the FWS did not violate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in adopting the Depredation Order. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Environmental Law, Government Law |
| Title: | The Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne |
| Date: | 08/14/08 |
| Case Number: | 05-2603 |
| Summary: | In a matter raised by animal rights organizations challenging defendants' Depredation Order, which they alleged violates certain treaties and statutes by "authoriz[ing] state fish and wildlife agencies, Indian Tribes, and U.S. Department of Agriculture...employees to kill an unlimited of federally protected double-crested cormorants in New York and twenty-four other states", judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) discretion granted to these third parties is limited and subject to adequate oversight by the Fish and Wildlife Services and therefore the order did not contravene the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 2) deference was warranted as to FWS's reasonable view that the Mexico Convention requires a close season only for game birds, which the parties agree do not include the cormorant; 3) the order was a reasonable response to evidence that in a large number of states, cormorants were responsible for localized, site-specific harm to public resources; and 4) the FWS did not violate NEPA in adopting the Depredation Order. |