Case Summaries
Environmental Law
Environmental Law
[06/21]
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
In an action challenging the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) decision to approve the unconditional deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a variety of alfalfa genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief, and defendants had standing to seek the Court's review of the Ninth Circuit's judgment affirming the entry of such relief; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency's completion of its detailed environmental review.
[06/18]
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
In several environmental and citizens' groups challenge to a 2003 Bureau of Land Management resource management plan amendment allowing natural gas development in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the Bureau reasonably concluded that phased development was impractical and would not meet the project's purposes, and this ground was an adequate basis for the Bureau's decision
[06/18]
Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone of Nev. v. US Dept. of Interior
In an action claiming that the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of a mining company's amendment to a plan of operations for an existing mineral exploration project in Nevada violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where 1) the BLM did not violate NEPA by approving the amendment without knowing the precise locations of drill sites, access roads, and other project activities; and 2) given the uncertainty of the exploration activities, the BLM imposed mitigation measures designed to adequately protect cultural resources in all phases of the amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where BLM's analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendment and the project was insufficient, and therefore violated NEPA.
[06/18]
Tomlinson v. County of Alameda
Trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging a decision of a county to approve a subdivision development is reversed as the project was not exempt from CEQA review as the county used the wrong legal standard in applying the exemption and substantial evidence does not show the proposed subdivision satisfied the exemption's criteria.
[06/17]
Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
In a suit brought by fishermen against a defendant for negligently spilling pollutants and hazardous contaminants into a pond, the judgment of the Second District is quashed as commercial fishermen have both a statutory and common law cause of action for economic losses proximately caused by the negligent release of pollutants despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damages by the pollution.
More...
|
