Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Friends of the Earth, Inc., et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.
ArgueDate=October 12
ArgueYear=1999
DecideDate=January 12
DecideYear=2000
FullName=Friends of the Earth, Incorporated, et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Incorporated
USVol=528
USPage=167
Citation=120 S. Ct. 693; 145 L. Ed. 2d 610; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 501; 49 ERC (BNA) 1769; 163 A.L.R. Fed. 749; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 289; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 375; 30 ELR 20246; 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 142; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 37
Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court held that plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina's North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Ginsburg
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer
Concurrence=Stevens
Concurrence2=Kennedy
Dissent=Scalia
JoinDissent=Thomas
LawsApplied=U.S. Const.

"Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.", 528 U.S. 167 (2000)ref|citation, was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.

The Court held that the plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina's North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued. Standing was properly based on the fact that the residents alleged that they would have used the river for recreational purposes, but could not because of the pollution.

The defendant polluter also claimed that the case was moot because it had ceased polluting, and had closed the factory responsible for the pollution complained of. The Court noted that the polluter still retained its license to operate such a factory, and could reopen similar operations elsewhere if not deterred by the fine sought. Therefore, the case was held not to be moot.

The Supreme Court's majority in "Friends" ruled that plaintiffs did not need to prove an actual (particular) harm to residents. Writing for the majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that injury to the plaintiff came from lessening the "aesthetic and recreational values of the area" for residents and users of the river due to their knowledge of Laidlaw’s repeated violations of its clean water permit.

In addition, the case held that a civil penalty could be enforced against an entity even though the interests protected were private. The court agreed with Congress in holding that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases "do more than promote immediate compliance by limiting the defendant's economic incentive to delay its attainment of permit limits; they also deter future violations."

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 528

External links

*ussc|528|167|Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужен реферат?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Environmental crime — Litter is an example of environmental crime Environmental crime can be broadly defined as illegal acts, which directly harm the environment. International bodies such as the G8, Interpol, EU, UN Environment Programme and the UN Interregional… …   Wikipedia

  • Environmental impact statement — This article refers to environmental impact statements under United States federal law. For worldwide perspective on environmental impact statements, see Environmental impact assessment. An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United… …   Wikipedia

  • List of environmental topics (F) — This is a list of environmental topics. They relate to the effect of human activity on the environment.*Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) *Fair trade *fallout shelter *Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (renamed Fauna and Flora… …   Wikipedia

  • List of environmental lawsuits — This is a list of environmental lawsuits. *Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia Worker s Compensation Board Supreme Court of Canada 1993 *Anderson v. Cryovac *Arizona v. California Supreme Court of the United States 1931, 1934, 1936, 1963,… …   Wikipedia

  • National Environmental Education Act — The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 is an act of Congress of the United States of America to promote environmental education. In this act, Congress found that threats to human health and environmental quality are increasingly complex …   Wikipedia

  • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency — Supreme Court of the United States Argued November 29, 200 …   Wikipedia

  • Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council — Supreme Court of the United States Argued Janua …   Wikipedia

  • National Environmental Policy Act — For other uses of NEPA , see NEPA (disambiguation). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Full title National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Acronym NEPA Enacted by the 91st United States Congress …   Wikipedia

  • Mootness — United States Federal Civil Procedure Doctrines Justiciability Advisory …   Wikipedia

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Infobox Judge name = Ruth Bader Ginsburg imagesize = caption = office = Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court termstart = August 10, 1993 termend = nominator = Bill Clinton predecessor = Byron White successor = Incumbent birthdate …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”