The citizen suite in regards to environmental acts, regulations and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is an essential tool in regulating impacts on the environment, public health, and the health of the wildlife. If used properly it can be an essential weapon for the public to keep companies, organizations, individuals, and even federal agencies in check. Citizen suits should not be taking lightly though, as it takes a great deal of time, research, and patience in trying to win a citizen suit case.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act provision 7002, 42 U.S.C Section 6972 states a civil action may be taken
(B) against any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency, to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution, and including any past or present generator, past or present transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility, who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment (42 U.S. Code 6972 - Citizen suits)
Different actions are brought to different courts. When an alleged violation or an alleged endangerment has happened the case is brought to the district court in which the violation occurred. When an alleged violation has occurred the case could either be brought to the district court in which the violation occurred or the District Court of the District of Columbia. (42 U.S. Code 6972 - Citizen Suits)
When seeking a citizen there are many different actions that must be followed in order to obtain the desired ...
... middle of paper ...
...son-.aspx
Maine Peoples Alliance & Natural Resource Defense Council v. Mallinckrodt, Inc. , No. 05-2331 (1st Cir. Dec. 22, 2006) By R. Bruce Barze, Jr. and Thomas L. Casey, III On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rendered. (n.d.). balch. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/dbb30829-8216-4f98-b8cd-560e4ac59053/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f1172bc3-ba5e-4fbe-9e35-017c5360684c/MainePeopleAllianceBBarzeTCasey.pdf
Publication. (n.d.). RCRA Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Suits. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from http://www.lplegal.com/publications/articles/rcra-imminent-and-substantial-endangerment-suits
Strang, C. E. (n.d.). RCRA Citizen Suits for Injunctive Relief. Tucker Ellis. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from http://www.tuckerellis.com/files/rcra_citizen_suits_for_injunctive_relief.pdf
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
The conceptual foundation of the U.S. Constitution is that there is a checks and balance system within the government that was developed to ultimately protect the rights of the people. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), there is an ongoing string of rulings from multiple appeals, for multiple rulings, that derived from a single case. What is interesting to note is that the original charge in the case is not the same charge for the most recent ruling. The actual case that is being heard in the Supreme Court is for civil damages. Although the law is being followed in allowing for the checks and balances to take place, the history of this case took place over a period of nine years from 1977-1986. One could question the efficiency of public administration in delivering a timely decision. As each case reached a ruling, another appeal needed to be submitted for the new justification of the ruling. Many different actions were submitted for review based on the different findings for each new ruling. A mentioned previously, this process was completed over a nine year period, and in accordance
Lester, etal V Percadani, etal. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieve October 31, 200 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/conner/01v1182a.pdf
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
Horton, J. (1986). Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation. The Environmental Law Reporter: The Best Legal Resource On Earth. Retrieved from http://elr.info/litigation/%5Bfield_article_volume-raw%5D/20081/sterling-v-velsicol-chem-corp
Rodriguez V. Attorney General Of Canada." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.4 (1994): 389. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
America”. The Georgetown Law Journal. 80.95 (1991): 95-129. Georgetown Law Library. Web. 16 Jun 2014
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law by President Obama on February 21, 2009. The law had three major goals which were all aimed at stimulating a sluggish US economy. The first goal was to create new jobs and save existing ones by tax credits for hiring new employees. The second goal was to spur economic activity and investment in long term growth by increasing the amount of business asset that could be acquired by companies while allowing for immediate deductions for the cost of the assets as well as numerous tax credits for individuals and businesses. The third goal was to foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending by requiring recipients of recovery act funds to post acknowledgements on the Recovery.gov website.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, often referred to as INA, is “the basic body of immigration law” (“Immigration and Nationality Act,” n.d.). The INA “is divided into titles, chapters, and sections” and is “contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.)” (“Immigration and Nationality Act,” n.d.). Within this paper I will be explaining certain definitions and reasons in regards to the following questions:
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the crowned jewel of the nation’s 544 refuges is in danger of destruction (Lamar and Markey 12). ANWR has been in existence since 1960 and has slowly become one of the most controversial topics to hit Congress. ANWR is composed of 19 million acres on the northeast coast of Alaska. Although the government has been provided with this immense land they are fighting to gain more land. Why? ANWR is the second biggest oil field that is owned by the U.S. Now the government wants more land to construct oil reserves. The refuge is home to many endangered species such as migratory birds, polar bears, and wolves (Lynne and Roberts 1). Most of ANWR’s designated oil area is owned by indigenous Alaskan people (Klyza and Ford-Martin 1). Though these are some of the concerns when debating to stop any further drilling, the more prevalent matters to anti-drillers are; the caribou species, duration of changes (benefits), and why keep a bill that contradicts already existing federal acts.
Stone says, “Standing…is the authority of someone to initiate an action. The term in its narrower common use is probably limited to the right of nongovernmental parties to institute judicial review, which will be our principal focus” (35). Writing with an audience of environmentalists and environmental lawyers in mind, he argues to put Nature in the plaintiff’s seat and allow all of nature – animal, vegetable, and mineral – to have legal standing in order to claim rights on their own behalf. Historically, the judiciary accepted only complaints where human beings could stake claim to violation of rights, on their own behalf as well as for non-humans and other property either owned or affected (injured) by as a citizen. In the case of Nature and non-humans Stone says this is a mistake linked to the three elements necessary for establishing standing. Namely, that citizens and organizations cannot suffer injury-in-fact which thus means there can be no causal link to an injury nor any injury that requires redress.
Defense." Southern Illinois University Law Journal 30.(2006): 533-571. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 2 Apr. 2014.