Home Page -- Products -- Order Now -- Download Issue -- Contact Us -- Search

SPECIALTY LAW - August, 2005 Environmental Law

Cases summarized in the August, 2005 issue of
Specialty Law Digest: Environmental Law.

GENERAL INDEX


airports -- no insurance reimbursement for expenses incurred in remedying pollution at Miami International Airport. Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America (Fla.App. 2005), No. 3D04-2113

armed forces -- property owners failed to establish genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether contamination of their ranch with trichloroethylene was direct, natural, or probable result of authorized use on Ellsworth Air Force Base. Moden v. United States (C.A.Fed. 2005), 404 F.3d 1335

-- record showed that Air Force in fact decided to conduct study before commencing cleanup operations to determine pervasiveness of trichloroethylene problem. Ross v. United States (Okla. 2005), No. 04-6146

asbestos -- trial court properly denied asbestos removal company's permit renewal applications. Affordable Asbestos Removal, Inc. v. Iowa Div. of Labor Svcs. (Ia.App. 2005), No. 5-201 / 03-2115

beach access easement -- property owners were not entitled to intervene in permit hearing in which their neighbors were granted permit that included condition that neighbor sign offer to dedicate beach easements to public. City of Malibu v. California Coastal Comm'n (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 501

bull trout -- issue of material fact as to whether lack of fish screen or head gate would kill or injure bull trout or would modify habitat in way that kills and injures bull trout. Idaho Watersheds Project v. Jones (C.A. 9, Idaho 2005), 127 Fed.Appx. 976

cattle -- "capacity" was measured by number of animal units physically capable of being housed in proposed facility, rather than number of animal units legally authorized at proposed facility. Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Bd. of Comm'rs (Minn.App. 2005), 694 N.W.2d 577

CERCLA -- because EPA had failed to provide any objective referent by which to measure its progress in three landfill sites that were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals, citizen was entitled to progress with her citizen suit. Frey v. Environmental Protection Agency (C.A. 7, Ind. 2005), 403 F.3d 828

chemical fumes -- where plaintiff was injured after inhaling fumes from chemicals that were splashed into his dorm room, pollution exclusion clause barred coverage because incident clearly qualified as "discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants." Watson v. Travelers Indem. Co. (Mich.App. 2005), No. 253127

chemical wastes -- genuine issues of material fact existed concerning time at which chemical waste processor could be reasonably charged with knowledge that its clean-up costs at Waterloo site could exceed $1 million. Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (Ia.App. 2005), No. 5-061 / 02-0111

contracts -- trial court properly found that contract required only that mobile home park operator certify that plaintiffs' home had been sanitized, not that it produce written guarantee. Ramirez v. Western Hills Estates (Cal.App. 2005), No. E035723

developments -- no merit to environmental plaintiff's claims that Connecticut Environmental Protection Act governed and prevented defendants from developing subdivision because such development was likely to unreasonably impair or destroy rattlesnakes inhabiting that parcel. Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques (Conn.App. 2005), 869 A.2d 679

docks -- ample evidence supported decision of Coastal Resources Management Council granting Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Special Exception to construct courtesy dock at Fort Adams State Park. Brenton's Cove Condo. Ass'n v. Tikoian (R.I.Super. 2005), No. 03-6066

-- Department of Environmental Protection properly denied dock permit on grounds that proposed dock would interfere with existing scenic uses. Kroeger v. Dep't of Envir. Protection (Me. 2005), Œ870 A.2d 566

endangered species -- no merit to environmental plaintiff's claims that Connecticut Environmental Protection Act governed and prevented defendants from developing subdivision because such development was likely to unreasonably impair or destroy rattlesnakes inhabiting that parcel. Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques (Conn.App. 2005), 869 A.2d 679

environmental impact reports -- EIR and any subsequent or supplemental EIR were intended to inform decision maker prior to making decision, not to inform decision maker of environmental effects of projects that have already been approved. Evans v. City of Beverly Hills (Cal.App. 2005), No. B173864

-- Kern County was required to prepare environmental impact report under CEQA prior to adopting ordinance that restricted application of sewage sludge on land located within jurisdiction of County. County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 28

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- court upheld orders of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which renewed paper company's license to operate hydroelectric project pursuant to Federal Power Act. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n (D.C.App. 2005), 405 F.3d 1

Federal Power Act -- court upheld orders of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which renewed paper company's license to operate hydroelectric project pursuant to Federal Power Act. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n (D.C.App. 2005), 405 F.3d 1

feedlots -- "capacity" was measured by number of animal units physically capable of being housed in proposed facility, rather than number of animal units legally authorized at proposed facility. Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge County Bd. of Comm'rs (Minn.App. 2005), 694 N.W.2d 577

fees -- because waste hauler fees were fees for services rather than taxes, imposition of user fees did not offend Const 1963, art 9, Section 31. Wheeler v. Charter Township of Shelby (Mich.App. 2005), 265 Mich.App. 657

forum non conveniens -- trial court acted well within its discretion in determining that balance of public and private factors favored trying action in Hawaii, since litigation involved pollution site in Hawaii. Royal Ins. Co. of America v. DIL Trust (Cal.App. 2005), No. A107361

hazardous wastes -- because EPA had failed to provide any objective referent by which to measure its progress in three landfill sites that were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals, citizen was entitled to progress with her citizen suit. Frey v. Environmental Protection Agency (C.A. 7, Ind. 2005), 403 F.3d 828

highways -- when prospective project caused general rise in property values for property benefited by highway project, increase in value was compensable until it becomes reasonably probable property would be taken for project. City of San Diego v. Barratt American Inc. (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 527

hydroelectric projects -- court upheld orders of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which renewed paper company's license to operate hydroelectric project pursuant to Federal Power Act. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n (D.C.App. 2005), 405 F.3d 1

insurance -- genuine issues of material fact existed concerning time at which chemical waste processor could be reasonably charged with knowledge that its clean-up costs at Waterloo site could exceed $1 million. Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (Ia.App. 2005), No. 5-061 / 02-0111

-- insured, contractor for municipal refuse recycling facilities, gave notice of loss under insured's Builder's Policy "as soon as possible." Metric/Kvaerner Fayetteville v. Federal Ins. Co. (C.A. 4, N.C. 2005), 403 F.3d 188

-- no reimbursement for expenses incurred in remedying pollution at Miami International Airport. Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America (Fla.App. 2005), No. 3D04-2113

-- pollution exclusion clause did not bar coverage for personal injuries arising from exposure to toxic fumes emanating from floor coating-sealant operation performed by insured. Nav-Its, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America (N.J. 2005), No. A-20 September Term 2004

-- potentially responsible party letter did not constitute suit and did not trigger insurer's duty to defend. R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co. (Conn. 2005), 870 A.2d 1048

-- where plaintiff was injured after inhaling fumes from chemicals that were splashed into his dorm room, pollution exclusion clause barred coverage because incident clearly qualified as "discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants." Watson v. Travelers Indem. Co. (Mich.App. 2005), No. 253127

jurisdiction -- Court of Claims was proper forum for complaint filed by corporate plaintiffs alleging Ohio Environmental Protection Agency had engaged in numerous complaint enforcement actions against plaintiffs. Barr v. Jones (Ohio App. 2005), 2005 -Ohio- 1488

Land Use Petition Act -- Land Use Petition Act did not preclude property owners' declaratory judgment action arguing Department of Ecology lacked authority to overrule Shoreline Management Act. Pope v. Grays Harbor County (Wash.App. 2005), No. 30440-6-II

landfills -- because EPA had failed to provide any objective referent by which to measure its progress in three landfill sites that were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals, citizen was entitled to progress with her citizen suit. Frey v. Environmental Protection Agency (C.A. 7, Ind. 2005), 403 F.3d 828

mobile homes -- trial court properly found that contract required only that mobile home park operator certify that plaintiffs' home had been sanitized, not that it produce written guarantee. Ramirez v. Western Hills Estates (Cal.App. 2005), No. E035723

notice of claim -- genuine issues of material fact existed concerning time at which chemical waste processor could be reasonably charged with knowledge that its clean-up costs at Waterloo site could exceed $1 million. Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (Ia.App. 2005), No. 5-061 / 02-0111

oil spills -- Maine's "reach and apply" statute was available under any policy of casualty insurance to apply to recovery for funds expended by government in preventing environmental damage from sunken fishing vessel. United States v. Water Quality Ins. Syndicate (Me. 2005), 870 A.2d 121

ordinances -- Kern County was required to prepare environmental impact report under CEQA prior to adopting ordinance that restricted application of sewage sludge on land located within jurisdiction of County. County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 28

paper companies -- court upheld orders of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which renewed paper company's license to operate hydroelectric project pursuant to Federal Power Act. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n (D.C.App. 2005), 405 F.3d 1

permits -- ample evidence supported decision of Coastal Resources Management Council granting Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Special Exception to construct courtesy dock at Fort Adams State Park. Brenton's Cove Condo. Ass'n v. Tikoian (R.I.Super. 2005), No. 03-6066

-- Department of Environmental Protection properly denied dock permit on grounds that proposed dock would interfere with existing scenic uses. Kroeger v. Dep't of Envir. Protection (Me. 2005), Œ870 A.2d 566

-- Land Use Petition Act did not preclude property owners' declaratory judgment action arguing Department of Ecology lacked authority to overrule Shoreline Management Act. Pope v. Grays Harbor County (Wash.App. 2005), No. 30440-6-II

-- property owners were not entitled to intervene in permit hearing in which their neighbors were granted permit that included condition that neighbor sign offer to dedicate beach easements to public. City of Malibu v. California Coastal Comm'n (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 501

-- remand would be ordered to determine whether pollutant limitations in permits challenged here meet or exceed federal standards. City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (Cal. 2005), 108 P.3d 862

pesticides -- trial court erred in supposing that farmers' defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of express warranty claims were premised on requirements for labeling or packaging. Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (U.S.S.Ct.Tex. 2005), 125 S.Ct. 1788

pollution exclusion clauses -- where plaintiff was injured after inhaling fumes from chemicals that were splashed into his dorm room, pollution exclusion clause barred coverage because incident clearly qualified as "discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants." Watson v. Travelers Indem. Co. (Mich.App. 2005), No. 253127

pollution remediation -- no insurance reimbursement for expenses incurred in remedying pollution at Miami International Airport. Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America (Fla.App. 2005), No. 3D04-2113

pollution sites -- trial court acted well within its discretion in determining that balance of public and private factors favored trying action in Hawaii, since litigation involved pollution site in Hawaii. Royal Ins. Co. of America v. DIL Trust (Cal.App. 2005), No. A107361

public trusts -- Commission may not exchange Queensway Bay parcels for river parcels. Corps v. California State Lands Comm'n (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 476

railroads -- Vermont's environmental land use statute could not impose pre-construction permit requirements on proposed railroad transloading facilities. Green Mountain Railroad Corp. v. State of Vermont (C.A. 2, Vt. 2005), 404 F.3d 638

ranches -- property owners failed to establish genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether contamination of their ranch with trichloroethylene was direct, natural, or probable result of authorized use on Ellsworth Air Force Base. Moden v. United States (C.A.Fed. 2005), 404 F.3d 1335

rattlesnakes -- no merit to environmental plaintiff's claims that Connecticut Environmental Protection Act governed and prevented defendants from developing subdivision because such development was likely to unreasonably impair or destroy rattlesnakes inhabiting that parcel. Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques (Conn.App. 2005), 869 A.2d 679

recycling facilities -- insured, contractor for municipal refuse recycling facilities, gave notice of loss under insured's Builder's Policy "as soon as possible." Metric/Kvaerner Fayetteville v. Federal Ins. Co. (C.A. 4, N.C. 2005), 403 F.3d 188

sewage -- trial court properly found that contract required only that mobile home park operator certify that plaintiffs' home had been sanitized, not that it produce written guarantee. Ramirez v. Western Hills Estates (Cal.App. 2005), No. E035723

sewage sludge -- Kern County was required to prepare environmental impact report under CEQA prior to adopting ordinance that restricted application of sewage sludge on land located within jurisdiction of County. County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 28

Shoreline Management Act -- Land Use Petition Act did not preclude property owners' declaratory judgment action arguing Department of Ecology lacked authority to overrule Shoreline Management Act. Pope v. Grays Harbor County (Wash.App. 2005), No. 30440-6-II

snakes -- no merit to environmental plaintiff's claims that Connecticut Environmental Protection Act governed and prevented defendants from developing subdivision because such development was likely to unreasonably impair or destroy rattlesnakes inhabiting that parcel. Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques (Conn.App. 2005), 869 A.2d 679

soil testing -- laboratory for testing soil and water samples was properly awarded amounts due for services performed in connection with cleanup of toxic waste sites. Somers v. Augeas Corporation, Inc. (Cal.App. 2005), No. C047285

storage tanks -- genuine issues of material fact existed concerning time at which chemical waste processor could be reasonably charged with knowledge that its clean-up costs at Waterloo site could exceed $1 million. Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (Ia.App. 2005), No. 5-061 / 02-0111

superfund sites -- because EPA had failed to provide any objective referent by which to measure its progress in three landfill sites that were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals, citizen was entitled to progress with her citizen suit. Frey v. Environmental Protection Agency (C.A. 7, Ind. 2005), 403 F.3d 828

takings -- when prospective project caused general rise in property values for property benefited by highway project, increase in value was compensable until it becomes reasonably probable property would be taken for project. City of San Diego v. Barratt American Inc. (Cal.App. 2005), 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 527

toxic fumes -- pollution exclusion clause did not bar coverage for personal injuries arising from exposure to toxic fumes emanating from floor coating-sealant operation performed by insured. Nav-Its, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America (N.J. 2005), No. A-20 September Term 2004

toxic waste sites -- laboratory for testing soil and water samples was properly awarded amounts due for services performed in connection with cleanup of toxic waste sites. Somers v. Augeas Corporation, Inc. (Cal.App. 2005), No. C047285

trichloroethylene -- property owners failed to establish genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether contamination of their ranch with trichloroethylene was direct, natural, or probable result of authorized use on Ellsworth Air Force Base. Moden v. United States (C.A.Fed. 2005), 404 F.3d 1335

-- record showed that Air Force in fact decided to conduct study before commencing cleanup operations to determine pervasiveness of trichloroethylene problem. Ross v. United States (Okla. 2005), No. 04-6146

trout -- issue of material fact as to whether lack of fish screen or head gate would kill or injure bull trout or would modify habitat in way that kills and injures bull trout. Idaho Watersheds Project v. Jones (C.A. 9, Idaho 2005), 127 Fed.Appx. 976

venue -- trial court acted well within its discretion in determining that balance of public and private factors favored trying action in Hawaii, since litigation involved pollution site in Hawaii. Royal Ins. Co. of America v. DIL Trust (Cal.App. 2005), No. A107361

waste haulers -- because waste hauler fees were fees for services rather than taxes, imposition of user fees did not offend Const 1963, art 9, Section 31. Wheeler v. Charter Township of Shelby (Mich.App. 2005), 265 Mich.App. 657

wastes -- genuine issues of material fact existed concerning time at which chemical waste processor could be reasonably charged with knowledge that its clean-up costs at Waterloo site could exceed $1 million. Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (Ia.App. 2005), No. 5-061 / 02-0111

-- record showed that Air Force in fact decided to conduct study before commencing cleanup operations to determine pervasiveness of trichloroethylene problem. Ross v. United States (Okla. 2005), No. 04-6146

wastewater -- remand would be ordered to determine whether pollutant limitations in permits challenged here meet or exceed federal standards. City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (Cal. 2005), 108 P.3d 862

water -- Department of Environmental Conservation's decision rejecting Revised Nitrogen Removal Plan was arbitrary and capricious. In re New York City Dep't of Envir. Protection (N.Y.Tr.T. 2005), No. 402174/2004

-- Department of Environmental Protection properly denied dock permit on grounds that proposed dock would interfere with existing scenic uses. Kroeger v. Dep't of Envir. Protection (Me. 2005), Œ870 A.2d 566

wetlands -- Land Use Petition Act did not preclude property owners' declaratory judgment action arguing Department of Ecology lacked authority to overrule Shoreline Management Act. Pope v. Grays Harbor County (Wash.App. 2005), No. 30440-6-II

Wilderness Act -- because it was clear from record that environmental group's Wilderness Act claim was already withdrawn before district court entered judgment -- second action improperly dismissed on res adjudicata grounds. Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States Forest Svc. (C.A. 9, Ore. 2005), 403 F.3d 683

wildlife -- issue of material fact as to whether lack of fish screen or head gate would kill or injure bull trout or would modify habitat in way that kills and injures bull trout. Idaho Watersheds Project v. Jones (C.A. 9, Idaho 2005), 127 Fed.Appx. 976

-- no merit to environmental plaintiff's claims that Connecticut Environmental Protection Act governed and prevented defendants from developing subdivision because such development was likely to unreasonably impair or destroy rattlesnakes inhabiting that parcel. Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques (Conn.App. 2005), 869 A.2d 679



Home Page -- Products -- Order Now -- Download Issue -- Contact Us -- Search