Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S.

<> Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. - 1/12/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-16684. Unpublished opinion appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The Center alleged that the Forest Service failed to regulate the disposal of spent lead ammunition in the Kaibab National Forest, thus making the Forest Service liable as a "contributor" to an "imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment" by permitting the poisoning of California condors and other wildlife.       The Panel said, "We conclude the Center has Article III standing. Because the district court did not have occasion to decide the Forest Service's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we reverse and remand." Appeals Court: Lead Ammunition Case in Kaibab National Forest Can Continue

 

Get The Daily Environmental HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).

 

Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS) produces the WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- Some of the best environmental law firms and consultants sponsor and subscribe to this publication.

The Daily HotSheet is different -- It doesn't bog you down with details -- unless you want them. . . Click Here to see a recent issue.

U.S. v. Tonawanda Coke Corp.

<> U.S. v. Tonawanda Coke Corp. - 1/11/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 14-1091. Summary Order. Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. The company [TCC] appeals the District Court's March 26, 2014 judgment adjudicating it guilty of offenses under the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).      The Panel rules, "We have reviewed all of TCC's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. We thus AFFIRM the March 26, 2014 judgment of the District Court." Also, the Panel said, "Finally, we reject TCC's argument that the District Court 'abused its discretion' in imposing, as a special condition of probation, a requirement that TCC fund (at a cost of $12,200,000) two evaluative studies designed to investigate the effects of its conduct on human health and the environment.

 

Get The Daily Environmental HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).

 

Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS) produces the WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- Some of the best environmental law firms and consultants sponsor and subscribe to this publication.

The Daily HotSheet is different -- It doesn't bog you down with details -- unless you want them. . . Click Here to see a recent issue.

Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker

<> Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker - 1/5/16. In the U.S Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-5304. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit claiming that federal agencies unlawfully neglected to manage stocks of river herring (alewives and blueback herring), and shad (American shad and their smaller relatives, hickory shad) in the Atlantic Ocean from New York to North Carolina.      The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no basis for judicial review of the Fishery Council's decision. The Panel ruled, "In short, plaintiffs' claims are not subject to judicial review under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the Administrative Procedure Act. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed."

 

You can now receive the

 

Daily Environmental HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).

 

Click Here to see a recent issue.

Larry Askins v. Ohio Department of Agriculture

<> Larry Askins v. Ohio Department of Agriculture - 1/6/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 15-3147. Plaintiffs-Appellants Larry and Vickie Askins filed a citizen suit alleging that Defendants-Appellees U.S. EPA, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and Ohio Department of Agriculture (collectively, "Defendants") violated the Clean Water Act's agency permitting procedures regarding discharges from animal feeding operations. The district court held that the Clean Water Act does not permit suits against regulators for regulatory functions and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Panel affirmed.

 

You can now receive the

 

Daily Environmental HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).

 

Click Here to see a recent issue.

Group Against Smog and Pollution v. Shenango, Inc.

<> Group Against Smog and Pollution v. Shenango, Inc. – 1/6/16. In the U.S Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 15-2041. The environmental group, GASP, sued Shenango under the Clean Air Act, which operates the Neville Island Coke Plant, a coke manufacturing and by-products recovery facility in Allegheny County, PA. The District Court granted Shenango's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's Order granting Shenango's motion to dismiss, "albeit for somewhat different reasons."

 

You can now receive the Daily Environmental HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).

Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell (Dept. of Interior)

<> Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell (Dept. of Interior) - 12/31/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 15-35559. Appellants challenge an incidental take regulation that permits the incidental harm to walruses during Arctic oil and gas explorations. The Panel rules, "Because changed conditions have mooted the underlying controversy, we cannot issue the advisory opinion the parties seek. . .We dismiss this appeal as moot, vacate the judgment and order of the district court, and direct the district court to dismiss this action upon remand."

 

You can now receive the Daily HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).

Dalton Trucking, Inc. v. EPA

<> Dalton Trucking, Inc. v. EPA - 12/18/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12/18/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1283 & 13-1287. Cases involve a final decision by EPA regarding California regulations intended to reduce emissions of particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen from in-use nonroad diesel engines -- concerns were raised regarding venue between the D.C. Circuit or the Ninth Circuit.      The Panel ruled: Petitioners claim that because EPA's decision does not satisfy either of the statutory avenues for filing in the D.C. Circuit, venue is not proper in this court. We agree. We therefore dismiss the petitions for review."

 

You can now receive the Daily HotSheet

National Edition at no charge

(click here).