23-Year Cumulative Index
Pennsylvania Journal
of Environmental Litigation
From January 1989 through December 2011
(Use your browser's FIND command to search this index of
topics, case names and numbers and case developments.)
Click here to access Index for LATEST ISSUES
from January 2012 to latest issue.
HOME
ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY In Re: St. Lawrence Corp. D NJ No. 99-5707 (MLC) Judge says trustee is able to abandon real property without complying with law because NJDEP cannot show hazard 6/9/00 P.12, opinion P. 44.
ABATEMENT PLAN/SUPERSEDEAS Al Hamilton Contracting Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-268-W EHB denied supersedeas on abatement plan 8/17/90 P. 11;
ACCESS ROAD Alloway, Samuel v. USEPA 3rd Cir USCA No. 91-5118 U.S. says appeal of order allowing access to property near CERCLA site in NJ is moot 3/18/91 P. 12;
ACCESS ROAD/ MOOTNESS Power Operating v. DEP EHB NO. 97-212 EHB says appeal of compliance order for bonded access road is moot and does not fall under mootness exception r 6/1/98 P. 11.
ACCESS ROUTE/ SOLID WASTE Korgeski Mr. and Mrs. John v. PA DER EHB No. 86-562-W EHB says DER failed to ascertain environmental harm associated with approach route for landfill 6/24/91 P. 10;
ACID MINE DRAINAGE AL Hamilton Contracting Co. Inc. v. DER EHB No. 92-468-E EHB refuses to draw inference that water discharging from culvert had been of poor quality before 1982 9/5/94 P. 9.
ACID MINE DRAINAGE Bologna Mining Co. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 86-555-M Coal operator is absolutely liable even for pre-existing acid mine drainage 3/17/89 P.13, opinion.48;
ACID MINE DRAINAGE Thompson & Phillips Clay Co. Inc. v. PA Dept. Envir. Resources, EHB No. 86-275-W Board cites fact dispute, refuses to grant DER motion for summary judgment in acid mine drainage case 4/7/89 P.13;
ACT 101 City of Harrisburg v. DER Cmwlth Ct No. 507 C.D. 1993 Cmwlth Ct says Act 101 limits towns' contracts with Harrisburg; finds city cannot accept waste from municipalities after majority approves waste plan 9/6/93 P. 7, opinion P. 44.
ACT 101 City of Harrisburg v. PA DER and Dauphin County Intermunicipal Solid Waste Authority EHB No. 91-250-MJ C EHB refuses to reconsider ruling on county's role in Act 101 waste flow control, but allows appeal 4/5/93 P. 6.
ACT 101 City of Harrisburg v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 93-206-MJ Board says Harrisburg can appeal DER's award to authority for costs of defending Act 101 plan 3/7/94 P. 9.
ACT 101 City of Harrisburg v. PA DER et al. EHB Primary responsibility for Act 101 waste flow control is assigned to counties, not municipalities, EHB says 2/22/93 P. 5.
ACT 101 CONDITIONS Seneca Landfill Inc. v. DER EHB No. 93-236 EHB strikes condition in landfill permit under Act 101 because limitation did not apply to other counties 9/19/94 P. 6.
ACT 101 CONTRACTS Empire Sanitary Landfill Inc. and Danella Environmental Technologies Inc. v. PA DER, Lehigh County Dept., of Planning and Development, Office of Solid Waste Management Commonwealth Court No. 265 M.D. 1992 Cmwlth Ct judge says pre-Act 101 extended collection contracts are exempt from county plan to termination 1/25/93 P. 5, opinion P. 32.
ACT 101 FEES Modern Trash Removal of York Inc. v. PA DER Commonwealth Court No. 1465 C.D. 1991 Cmwlth Ct judge applies Act 101 fees to waste transferred in cleanup from one landfill to another 8/24/92 P. 6, opinion P. 14.
ACT 101 New Hanover Corp. v. DER, New Hanover Township et al. EHB No. 90-225-W EHB says permittee cannot challenge county waste plan denial of landfill repermit if it did not appeal Act 101 plan 11/7/94 P. 15.
ACT 101 Tri-County Industries Inc. v. PA DER Northwest Sanitary Landfill Inc., Intervenor; Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Intervenor, and the County of Mercer EHB No. 92-063-E-F Board says Act 1 01 plan revision, but not entire plan, may be appealed, but that petitioner lacks standing 9/21/92 P. 6, opinion P. 18.
ACT 101/ GRANTS City of Harrisburg v. PA DER and Cumberland County EHB No. 93-205-W EHB says Act 101 does not allow DER to award grants to pay Cumberland County's legal costs to defend plan 10/10/94 P. 11.
ACT 101/ HOST FEES Borough of Dunmore v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 54 C.D. 1992 Cmwlth Ct judge says Act 101 host municipality benefit fee is calculated separately for each contiguous landfill 10/5/92 P. 10, opinion P. 22.
ACT 101/ REPRESENTATION Greene County Citizens United et al. v. DER et al. EHB No. 94-102-E Board gives citizens group and 12 municipalities until Sept. 29 to file appeal petition based on alleged fraud 10/10/94 P. 13.
ACT 101/FEES Modern Trash Removal of York Inc. v. PA DEREHB No. 90-250-W EHB says three fees are mandatory for solid waste relocated from one landfill to another by company 6/24/91 P. 10;
ACT 339 Department of Environmental Protection v. Peters Township Sanitary Authority. Cmwlth Ct No. 923 C.D. 2000 Cmwlth Ct says administrative finality bars Act 339 expenses in 1994 from being claimed in 1997 application 1/22/01 P. 12.
ACT 339 Exeter Township, Berks County, Authority v. DEP EHB No. 98-154-C EHB says appeal was not timely filed because DEP letter denying Act 339 subsidies was final decision 6/26/01 P.
ACT 339 Franklin v. DEP No. 769 CD 1997 Cmwlth Ct reluctantly finds wetland costs not covered under Act339 Cmwlth Ct NO.769 CD 1997 2/2/98 P.5.
ACT 339 SUBSIDY University Area Joint Authority v. PA DEP EHB No. 96-109-MR EHB says DEP erred in calculating Act 339 subsidy based on long-standing 1.5 percent instead of actual interest 5/18/98 P.10.
ACT 37 PLAN Lower Towamensing Township v. DER EHB No. 92-149-E Board declares township failed to prove proposal for its sewage plant was better than regional plant 10/18/93 P. 10.
ACT 537 Ainjar Trust v. DEP and Susquehanna Township et al. EHB No. 99-248- EHB says issue of whether Act 537 sewage plan really exists, despite alleged revisions by township, is to be tried 1/22/01 P. 10
ACT 537 E. Marvin Herr, E.M. Herr Farms v. DER and Pequea Township, Intervenor EHB No. 94-098-E EHB says DER withdrawal of order for municipality to revise Act 537 plan is decision not subject to review 4/10/95 P. 16.
ACT 537 Herr v. DEP Cmwlth Ct 1912 C.D. 1997 Cmwlt Ct says MDC doesnot confer vested right to approval of sewage failicites plan under Act 537 7/27/98 P. 8.
ACT 537 PLAN Morton Kise et al. v. PADER et al. EHB No. 900-457-MR EHB says DER oversite of sewage is limited to impact, despite Article I, Section 27 of State Constitution 12/21/92 P. 11.
ACT 537 PLAN Darlene K. Thomas et al. v. DEP and Lamar Township Board of Supervisors EHB No. 95-206-C Board finds DEP is not overly burdened to produce copy of Act 537 plan revision 6/24/96 P. 10.
Act 537 SEWAGE PLAN Reality Engineering Developers Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 88-351-MJ EHB dismisses appeal from denial of sewage plan revision as moot; other issues may yet be addressed 4/5/93 P. 12.
ACT 537 SEWAGE PLAN Reality Engineering Developers Inv. v. PA DER and Schuylkill Township EHB No. 88-351-MJ EHB dismisses appeal from denial of sewage plan revision as moot; other issues may yet be addressed 4/5/93 P. 7, opinion P. 31.
ACT 537 Ainjar Trust, John O. Vartan, trustee v. DEP, Susquehanna Township et al. EHB No. 99-248-K EHB upholds Act 537 module for residential development but deletes reference to provision for clubhouse facility 10/23/01 P. 13
ACT 537/ DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Lower Paxton Township v. DEP EHB No. 2000-169-K EHB declares role of DEP official must be open to inquiry through his testimony in township's appeal of Act 537 plan 3/20/01 P. 7, opinion P. 35.
ACTIONS AGAINST DEP Walter J. Mintz Inc. et al. v. State of Pennsylvania et al. E.D. PA No. 99-1823 Judge says 11th Amendment bars claims against DEP for violating civil rights of operators by $26,000 penalties PA 6/21/99 P.8, opinoin P. 39.
ACTIONS AGAINST DEP Walter J. Mintz Inc. et al. v. State of Pennsylvania et al. E.D. PA No. 99-1823 Judge says 11th Amendment bars claims against DEP for violating civil rights of operators by $26,000 penalties PA 6/21/99 P.8, opinoin P. 39.
ACTIONS AGAINST DEP Walter J. Mintz Inc. et al. v. State of Pennsylvania et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-1428 Hauling operators ask 3rd Circuit to find refusal to enter default against DEP workers over $26,000 fine was error 3/8/00 P.9.
ADDITIONAL RELIEF Ashland Township Association of Concerned Citizens Inc.v. DEP et al. EHB No. 98-204-R EHB denies petition for additional relief, saying citizens' group fails to demonstrate irreparable harm 7/7/99 P. 13.
ADDITIONAL RELIEF Ashland Township Association of Concerned Citizens Inc.v. DEP et al. EHB No. 98-204-R EHB denies petition for additional relief, saying citizens' group fails to demonstrate irreparable harm 7/7/99 P. 13.
ADIMINSTRATIVE FIN ALITY Avery Coal v. PADER EHB No. 90-406-MJ Intervention is barred by administrative finality 5/6/91 P.15.
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY Exeter Township, Berks County Authority et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 98-154-C EHB vacates summary judgment that township authority had not sought but was granted based on another judgment 5/26/00 P. 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT United States v. Reading Tube Corp. EPA seeks $217,500 in for alleged violations 5/4/92 P. 11.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Bender E.P. Coal Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-487-MJ Appeal is not barred by administrative finality because letter did not affect rights 6/3/91 P. 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY DEP Tri-State River Produucts Inc. v. DEP EHB No. 97-020 EHB says finality bars challenge in transfer of dredging permit 12/8/97 P.9, opinion P. 51.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Hargar, William L. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-206-E Board will not apply administrative finality 9/21/90 P. 16;
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Lucky Strike v. DEP EHB No. 92-003 Board cites failure to appeal compliance order and penalty 9/22/97 P.12
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Martin v.DEP EHB No. 95-190 EHB says finality bars mobile home appeal of sewage plan 10/7/96 P. 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Polar/Bek Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 91-387-MJ Doctrine of administrative finality bars appeal from condition of permit for spa 6/15/92 P. 11.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Power Operating v.DEP EHB No. 97-212 EHB finds order appealed is distinguishable hom earlier order 1/5/98 P.7, opinion P. 34
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Reading Anthracite Co. v. PADEP and Kocker Coal Co. Inc. Cmwlth Ct No. 2188 C.D. 1998 Cmwth Ct says finality doctrine allows no exceptions, bars arguments that should have been raised for prior permits 5/24/99 P.13, opinion P. 47.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Reading Anthracite Co. v. PADEP and Kocker Coal Co. Inc. Cmwlth Ct No. 2188 C.D. 1998 Cmwth Ct says finality doctrine allows no exceptions, bars arguments that should have been raised for prior permits 5/24/99 P.13, opinion P. 47.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY PUSH v. DEP EHB says doctrine bars certain challenges by citizen group 12/2/96 P.11.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Wasson v. PADEP EHB No. 97-136 EHB says finality bars appeal because of provision in agreement 3/9/98 P.10.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY/ WASTE FLOW Kelly Run Sanitation Inc. v. DER EHB No. 94-270-E Board says administrative finality doctrine precludes landfill's challenge, despite Carbone waste flow appeal 4/10/95 P. 16.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY/ WASTE FLOW Kelly Run Sanitation Inc. v. DER EHB No. 94-270-E Text of EHB ruling that administrative finality doctrine precludes Act 537 challenge, despite Carbone decision 4/24/95 P. 12.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Clark R. Ingram et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 93-181-W EHB says DER cannot compel compliance with order of Cmwlth Ct by issuance of an administrative order 1/10/94 P. 13.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALTY Reading Anthracite Co. v. PA DEP et al. EHB No. 95-196-C EHB denies reconsideration that Reading Antracite is not barred from arguing lack of consent to ash disposal 3/23/98 P.7.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Reading Anthracite Co. v. PA DEP, Porter Associates Inc., Permitee, and Kocher Coal Co. EHB No. 95-196-C EHB judge says finality doctrine applies to all claims, not only to specious ones, that could have been raised 7/14/98 P.7.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Concerned Carroll Citizens v. PADEP and Maple Creek Mining Inc. EHB No. 97-278-R Board dismisses citizens appeal because of administrative finality and failure to respond to motions of DEP, operator 5/10/99 P.11, opinion P. 42.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Concerned Carroll Citizens v. PADEP and Maple Creek Mining Inc. EHB No. 97-278-R Board dismisses citizens' appeal because of administrative finality and failure to respond to motions of DEP, operator 5/10/99 P.11, opinion P. 42.
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY Stoystown Borough Water Authority v. Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 97-174-R EHB finds borough water authority's appeal of permit for mining is barred by administrative finality doctrine 8/10/98 P.7, opinion P. 50.
ADMISSIONS C&K CoalCo. v. PADER EHB No. 91-138-E EHB allows withdrawal of deemed admissions and replacement with written admissions 9/9/91 P. 13.
ADMISSIONS Carl E. Brunecke v. PADER EHB No. 91-170-MJ Board denies DER motion for admissions in appeal of order that dumpin~ of solid waste was unlawful 9/9/91 P. 12.
ADMISSIONS Mendelson, Mark and Elain v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB Docket No. 88-336-M Requests for admission not objectioNable when they relate to averments of notice of appeal 2/3/89 P.21; Board says discovery precludes dismissing appeal with respect to one permit, but dismisses another 3/3/89 P.12;
ADMISSIONS Victor Kennedy d/b/a Kennedy's Mobile Home Park v. DEP EHB No. 2000-168-L EHB cites 'circumstances' in approving withdrawal of admissions resulting from failure to answer them timely 2/6/01 P. 13
ADMISSIONS/ NESHAPS United States of America v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., E.D. PA No. 88-6681 EPA's rerquest for admissions in Chevron refinery case in Phila. does not permit concise answers 10/6/89 P. 9, opinion P. 44; Chevron loses attorney-client argument in its effort to avoid producing NESHAP compliance report 11/3/89 P. 11, order P. 47;
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES United States of America v. Helen Kramer et al. D NJ No. 89-4340(JFG) Judge strikes affirmative defenses of 16 defendants in Kramer case except allegation of divisibility 3/4/91 P. 17;
AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT Richard V. Lenzi v. Agricultural Land Preservation Board Commonwealth Court No. 965 C.D. 1991 Cmwth Ct says neighboring landowner should have opportunity to be heard on conservation easement 1/20/92 P. 9, opinion P. 27.
AIR Kacer, James v. PA DER, EHB No. 88-331-M Board restricts testimony to issues specified in notice of appeal in air pollution case 8/18/89 P. 13;
AIR OPERATING PERMIT William A. Smedley v. PA DEP International Paper Co. Permittee EHB No. 96-253-C Board says administrative finality bars raising issue of ash disposal that should have been raised in solid waste permit 12/7/98 P. 9.
AIR OPERATING PERMIT William A. Smedley v. PA DEP International Paper Co. Permittee EHB No. 96-253-C Board says administrative finality bars raising issue of ash disposal that should have been raised in solid waste permit 12/7/98 P. 9.
AIR OUALITY PLAN Florence v. DEP EHB No. 96-045 EHB allows more stringent inclusion of fugitive emissions 12/2/96 P.7 . Board rejects NJ town's appeal of Bucks landfill 12/2/96 P.8, opinion P. 39.
AIR OUALITY Soil Remediation v. DEP EHB No. 97-006 Perod to appeal begins with recceipt of DEP's facsimile, EHB says. 5/5/98 P.5, opinion P. 41.
AIR OUALITY DePaulo v. DEP EHB No. 96-100 Board asks why more stringent standard is needed for this crematory 2/17/97 P.10. -
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT RJM Manufacturing Inc. v. PA DEP EHB NO. 97-126-M EHB denies DEP's equitable estoppel motion in challenge to $332,724 air pollution penalty; finds rules constitutional 7/27/98 P.10.
AIR POLLUTION / STANDING Leonard E. Triggs v. DEP and Calpine Construction Finance Co. L.P. EHB No. 2000-240-MG EHB judge asks whether standing requires being affected or is conferred by exception in Air Pollution Control Act fees 5/7/01 P. 9.
AIR POLLUTION Clearfield Municipal Authority v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 83-137-W Board dismisses Clearfield Authority appeal; mining permit adequately dealt with air pollution 6/16/89 P.12;
AIR POLLUTION Coalition of Religious and Civic Organizations Inc. v. PADER No. 90-128-W EHB allows Pfizer to limit some issues in CORCO's appeal of plan approvals under Air Pollution Act 5/6/91 P.4
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT Borough of Glendon v. DER and Glendon Energy Co. EHB No. 92-071-W EHB finds Glendon Borough's appeal of air quality extension is moot because of expiration of approval 11/8/94 P. 11.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT North American Refractories Co. v. PADEP EHB No. 99-253-MG Board says DEP letter on 'active' status of kilns is not a final action with respect to Air Pollution Control permit 3/21/00 P.11.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT PA DER v. U.S. Wrecking EHB No. 90-538-CP-W EHB sustains DER's demurrer to U.S. Wrecking's 'counterclaim' in asbestos air pollution case 11/18/91 P. 12.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ACT United Refining Co. v. DEP EHB No. 95-153-E EHB judge sees no prejudice to United Refining in filing first pre-hearing memorandum in its air pollution appeal 12/18/95 P. 15
AIR POLLUTION David Tessitor and Ed L. Stewart v. DER and Port Authority of Allegheny County, Permittee EHB No. 94-352-E EHB finds lack of immediate interest for appeal of permit allowing busway that would allegedly cause air pollution 5/22/95 P. 14.
AIR POLLUTION Kim Graves and Bob North Inc. v. DEP EHB No. 2000-189-MG Board find untimely vapor system is acknowledged because owners said DEP waited six years to impose $86,465 penalty 9/12/01 P. 9.
AIR POLLUTION MGS General Contracting Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 99-059-R EHB dismisses Air Pollution appeal for failure to pre-pay 11/22/99 P. 12.
AIR POLLUTION MGS General Contracting Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 99-059-R EHB dismisses Air Pollution appeal for failure to pre-pay 11/22/99 P. 12.
AIR POLLUTION North American Refractories Co. v. DEP EHB No. 99-199-MG Board find interpretation of emission reduction credits under New Source Review Program not free from doubt 6/9/00 P. 4, brief P. 14.
AIR POLLUTION William A. Smedley v. DEP and International Paper Co. EHB No. 97-253-K Board finds no showing that burning of 'tire derived fuel' will result in any pollution, affirms 'minor' modification 3/6/01 P. 8
AIR POLLUTION American Auto Wash Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Court No. 3394 C.D. 1997 Cmwlth Ct cuts Stage II vapor recovery penalty to $71,444 after faulting DEP for basing 10 percent on size of stations 5/10/99 P. 5, opinion P. 13.
AIR POLLUTION American Auto Wash Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Court No. 3394 C.D. 1997 Cmwlth Ct cuts Stage II vapor recovery penalty to $71,444 after faulting DEP for basing 10 percent on size of stations 5/10/99 P. 5, opinion P. 13.
AIR POLLUTION Heston S. Swartley Transportation Co. Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 99-017-L EHB dismisses air pollution penalty appeal for failure to prepay penalty or post appeal bond 4/5/99 P.12.
AIR POLLUTION Heston S. Swartley Transportation Co. Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 99-017-L EHB dismisses air pollution penalty appeal for failure to prepay penalty or post appeal bond 4/5/99 P.12.
AIR POLLUTION Milco Industries Inc. and Bloomsburg v. DEP EHB No. 2001-179-L EHB judge says malodorous sewer line may be facility 'by reason of which" air contaminants are emitted 10/23/01 P. 13.
AIR POLLUTION United States of America et al. v. Brotech Corp. E.D. PA No. 00-2428 Judge finds EPA letter about alleged air pollution violations satisfies notice provisions of §113(a) of Clean Air Act 9/29/00 P. 15
AIR POLLUTION White Glove Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-172-MG Board says withdrawal of appeal with prejudice constitutes adjudication on merits, barring new Air Pollution challenge 5/18/98 P.10
AIR POLLUTION/ PENALTIES F.R.& S. Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Crossing Landfill v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-247-MG EHB says landfill permittee may challenge penalty amount; consent order does not preclude challenge to reasonableness 5/4/98 P.12a, opinion P. 33.
AIR QUALITY Kenneth P. Koretsky v. DER and Clean Soils Inc. EHB No. 93-357-W EHB chairman says air quality issues can be raised in appeal from issuance of solid waste permit 7/20/94 P. 15.
AIR QUALITY PLAN Township of Florence v. PA DEP and Waste Management of Pennsylvania Inc. EHB No. 96-045-MG EHB refuses to dismiss township's 'potential to emit' VOC appeal as to state, federal new source review requirements 8/19/96 P.9.
AIR QUALITY/ DISCOVERY Schuylkill Township v.PA DEP and American Inks and Coastings Corp. EHB No. 97-263-MG EHB judge orders discovery of permitting process for air quality control plan that DEP termed confidential 4/20/98 P. 6, orders P. 39.
AIR Scurfield Coal Inc. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources EHB No. 88-229-E EHB rejects DER claim that appeal of air pollution order was mooted by coal company's compliance 1/5/090 P. 14;
AIR/ BENZENE United States of America v. Unitank Terminal Service et al., E.D. PA No. 87-6793 Judge interprets benezene NESHAP to cover storage tanks, cites effects to health of an opposite ruling 11/17/89 P. 7, opinion P. 20;
ALLOCATION OF RESPONSE COSTS United States of America v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge declares 50/50 share between municipal and industrial waste at Dorney Road landfill 9/18/95 P. 4, excerpts 18, 33.
ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 Replying to generator defendants, NJ turnpike authority tells 3rd Circuit why alternative liability is applicable PA 6/21/99 P.6, brief P. 22.
ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 Replying to generator defendants, NJ turnpike authority tells 3rd Circuit why alternative liability is applicable PA 6/21/99 P.6, brief P. 22.
AMEND APPEAL Raymark Industries Inc. et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-180-E Board refuses to allow amended notice of appeal that would raise vicarious liability for Raymark 3/4/91 P. 14;
AMEND Evergreen Association v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 92-257-E EHB grants New Morgan Landfill's motion strike objections not raised in citizen group's notice of appeal 3/22/93 P. 12
AMEND NOTICE City of Scranton and Borough of Taylor and Old Forge v. DER and Empire Sanitary Landfill, Permittee EHB No. 94-060-E ALJ says Scranton, other towns waited too long to try to amend notice for Empire Landfill ash contract in NJ 6/5/95 P. 9. opinion P. 26.
AMEND NOTICE Environtrol Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 91-388-W EHB says failure to object to provision in permit bars amending notice of appeal to challenge provision 6/15/92 P. 10.
AMENDED COMPLAINT Reinert v.DEP EHB No. 97-012 EHB allows amended appeal to take account of fire
AMENDING COMPLAINT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. CXS Transportation Inc. EHB No. 94-226-CP-E ALJ allows new counts against CSX Transporation for civil penalties six months after DER's complaint 5/8/95 P. 12, opinion P. 24.
AMICUS BRIEF Environmental l Neighbors' United Front et al. v. PA DER and Mill Service Inc. EHB No. 91-372-MJ EHB EHB treatscounty's memorandum as amicus brief 1/20/92 P. 13.
ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS Newlin Corp. et al. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources , EHB No. 83-237-W Board rules on conditions for referencing matters from ancillary proceedings in post-hearing briefs 5/5/89 P.13;
ANSWERS Willowbrook Mining Co. v. PADER EHB No. 90-346-E Board orders mining company to supplement answers regarding experts, public benefits 1/18/91 P. 14;
APPEAL (BONDS) Dunkard Creek Coal Inc. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-015-W Appeal of coal company dismissed for failure to prepay assessment or post bonds 2/3/89 P.16;
APPEAL (LATE) Lancaster Press Inc. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-410-W Board says lack of evidence on whether late appeal was mailed on time causes dismissal 4/7/89 P.15;
APPEAL (LATE) Louis Beltrami et al. v. PA Dept. of Environ. Resources, EHB No. 84-084-F Board says appeal was filed late despite dispute over secretary's authority to receive notice 5/19/89 P. 17;
APPEAL (LETTER) Reinert, George v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB Docket No. 87-508-W Board denies DER motion to dismiss appeal of letter advising a municipality of deficiencies in subdivision plan 1/20/89 P. 18;
APPEAL (NOTICE) Borough of Bellefonte et al. v PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-458-F Secretary's stress is not grounds for nunc pro tunc filing after failure to send notice of appeal 5/19/89 P.11; Board says letter reminding Bellefonte of requirements for water allocaiton permit is not appealable action 6/15/90 P. 11;
APPEAL (TIMELY) Cubbon Lumber Co. v. PA Dept of Envir. Resources, EHB Docket No. 88-507-R Appeal of lumber company dismissed because it was filed beyond 30-day period 2/3/89 P.15;
APPEAL (UNTIMELY) DeFazio, Sylvio & Kean t/a/ Diamond Fuel Inc. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources EHB No. 90-186-W Board finds appeal untimely, cites lack of evidence 8/3/90 P. 11;
APPEAL / STANDING Neshaminy Water Resources Authority et al. v. PA. Dept. of Environmental Resources et al. EHB No. 88-088 Board dismisses authority's appeal, cites lack of standing after transfer of permits 4/6/90 P. 14;
APPEAL BOND Carl L. Kresge & Sons Inc. v. PADEP EHB No. 99-149-K EHB cites failure to present sufficient evidence to prove inability to prepay $23,250 penalty or post appeal bond 5/23/01 P. 12.
APPEAL BOND George A. Clopper v. PA DER EHB No. 91 -2930MJ Board Board cannot hear appeal without bond posted 1/6/92 P. 15.
APPEAL BOND Robert K. Goetz Jr. d/b/a Goetz Demolition v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-226-C Board says failure to post appeal bond requires dismissal of appeal from civil penalty assessment 3/1/99 P.10.
APPEAL BOND Robert K. Goetz Jr. d/b/a Goetz Demolition v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-226-C Board says failure to post appeal bond requires dismissal of appeal from civil penalty assessment 3/1/99 P.10.
APPEAL BOND Stanley T. Pilawa and Disposal Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 96-108-MR Board says financial inability to post appeal bond must be disclosed during 30-day appeal period 8/5/96 P.11.
APPEAL DEADLINE SC Holdings Remediation v/ DEP Cmwlteh Ct No. 1194 CD 1997 Cmwlth Ct says certified letter, not faxed copy, starts appeal clock 1/5/98 P. 6.
APPEAL FILING Herold Johnson v. PA DER EHB Docket No. 93-137-MR ALJ denies motion to dismiss appeal as untimely; letter stating desire to appeal was filed by facsimile 11/22/93 P. 13
APPEAL ISSUES/ EHB Booher, Gerald v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Environmental Hearing Board No. 89-204-MJ Board refuses to limit issues whichwould bar contesting unappealable notice of violaiton 4/20/90 P. 13, opinion P. 60;
APPEAL MOOT Solar Fuel Co. Inc. v. DER EHB No. 93-353-E Board says orders now complied with will not affect mining permit 6/6/94 P. 13.
APPEAL NOTICE R.E.M. Coal Co. v. PA DER EHB NO. 91-536-E Board dismisses sanction appeal, cites no jurisdiction due to failure to file within 30 days of DER notice 2/17/92 P. 12.
APPEAL NOTICE University Area Joint Authority v. PADER EHB No. 91-121-MRAmendment to appeal notice unnecessary board says 6/24/91 P. 13;
APPEAL South Fayette Township v. PA Dept. of Enviornmental Resources and Mohawk Mining Co. Environmental Hearing Board No. 89-004-F Board says Fayette Township's memorandum met minimum standards on recitation of facts 5/21/90 P. 5/21/90 P. 13;
APPEAL TIMELINESS Black Rock Exploration Company Inc. v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 2436 C.D. 1993 Cmwlth Ct says EHB's extension applied same deadline for appeal papers and appeal bond 8/22/94 P. 10.
APPEAL Stanley Grazis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection EHB No. 95-181-C EHB says petition for reconsideration was not filed within 10 days of decision on inactive status of wells 2/3/97 P.12
APPEAL NUNC PRO TUNC Donald M. Simons II and J.J.H Maguire Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 98-089-MG EHB says delay in attempt to settle cleanup order does not provide grounds for appeal nunc pro tunc that is untimely 12/7/98 P. 11.
APPEAL NUNC PRO TUNC Donald M. Simons II and J.J.H Maguire Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 98-089-MG EHB says delay in attempt to settle cleanup order does not provide grounds for appeal nunc pro tunc that is untimely 12/7/98 P. 11.
APPEAL/ MOOTNESS Harriman Coal Corp. v. DEP EHB No. 99-068-C etc. EHB says mootness does not apply to appeals of conditions in two expired permits because conditions can be repeated 10/9/00 P. 12.
APPEAL/ NOTICE Paradise Township Citizens Committee Inc. et al. v. PADER et al. EHB No. 91-152-W EHB finds third-party appeal period runs from date committee received notice not published in Bulletin 6/1/92 P. 11
APPEALABILITY Costanza Louis d/b/a Elephant Septic Tank Service v. PADER EHB No. 91-140-E EHB cannot grant declaratory relief but asks for briefs on whether DER letter was 'final action' 6/3/91 P.13;
APPEALABILITY Municpal Authority of Buffalo Township v. PA DER EHB No. 88-041-M DER letter to municipal authority is not appealable 8/17/90 P. 12;
APPEALABLE ACTION Keystone Castings Corp. v. PA DER EHB No. 92-517-E New letter directing foundry to comply with order issued two years earlier is not appealable, EHB says 4/10/93 P. 10.
APPEALABLE ACTION Mark Basalyga v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources, EHB No. 88-165-F Language in DER letter did not constitute an appealable action; it can be raised now 4/21/89 P.8, opinion P. 43.
APPEALABLE ACTION Protect Environment and Children Everywhere v. PADEP EHB No. 99-170-L EHB says DEP's advertising for proposals for reclamation project does not constitute final, appealable action Cmwlth Ct judge gives landfill extension to start facility because FAA statute affecting site was found too limited 1/25/00 P. 13.
APPEALABLE ACTION Scott Township, Allegheny County v. PA DER EHB No. 92-548-E ALJ refuses to dismiss appeal of DER letter listing ways to abate composting violations and deadline 5/12/93 P. 11.
APPEALABLE ACTION Franklin Township Municipal Sanitary Authority v. DEP EHB No. 95-201-R Board says DEP letter reaffirming and refusing to reconsider decision is not appealable action 8/19/96 P.12.
APPEALABLE ACTIONS Felix Dam Preservation Association et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-009-K EHB gives basic principles for appealable letter; key factor is requirement for recipient to do something altering status quo . 7/6/00 P. 10.
APPEALABLE John and Sharon Klay d/b/a Fayette Springs Farmv. PA DER EHB No. 92-280-E Board says letter from DER on disposal system sitewas advisory for township and non appealable 3/8/93 P. 11.
APPEALABLE ACTION Highridge Water Authority v. PA DEP and Blairsville Municipal Authority and Lower Indiana County Municipal Authority, Permittee EHB No. 98-191-R EHB says DEP letters can be final appealable action where letters confirm DEP's final determination 1/19/99 P.8, opinion P. 17.
APPEALABLE ACTION Highridge Water Authority v. PA DEP and Blairsville Municipal Authority and Lower Indiana County Municipal Authority, Permittee EHB No. 98-191-R EHB says DEP letters can be final appealable action where letters confirm DEP's final determination 1/19/99 P.8, opinion P. 17.
APPEALABLE FINAL ORDERS Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corp. v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-198-MR Board says DEP letters identifying omissions in cleanup plans and requesting revisions are not appealable 6/22/98 P. 11a.
APPEALBILITY / EHB Mignatti Construction Co. Inc. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources EHB No. 89-066-W EHB refuses to dismiss appeal of letter advising stone quarry operator that permit had expired 1/19/90 P. 19;
APPEALS / EHB Summit Twp. Board of Supervisors v. Summit Twp. Zonin gHearing Coard Cmwth Ct. No. 930 C.D. 1989 Cmwth Ct says notice of appeal from builidng permit for Waster Management set forth grounds for appeal 4/6/90 P. 8, opinion P. 25;
APPLICATION DEADLINE Upper Allegheny Joint Sanitary Authority v. PA DER, Commonwealth Court No. 619 C.D. 1989 Court affirms DER decision that sewerage authority did not file timely application 12/15/89 P.11;
APPLICATION FEE Approved Coal Corp. v. PADER EHB No. 91-193-E Board transfers to Board ^appeal of DER's refusal to return $500 fee 3/9/92 P. 9.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHALLENGE RESCUE Wyoming et al. v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 91-503-W EHB refuses to dismiss archaeological challenge to surface mining permit 8/2/93 P. 12
ASBESTOS REMOVAL Sigmund Fried et al. v. SunGard Recovery Services Inc. E.D. PA No. 95-878 Judge denies class certification to plaintiffs who contend employer's asbestos tile removal violated Clean Air Act 6/24/96 P. 10. Contractor moves to dismiss medical monitoring claims in lawsuit alleging bystander exposure from renovations 8/19/96 P. 15.
ASBESTOS (STATE) Commonwealth of PA v. Congoleum Corp. et al. Cmwth Ct. PA's unique strategy: test asbestos recovery against two companies who have little defense experience 2/16/90 P. 14;
ASBESTOS / BUILDING PROFILES Trustees of the Unviersity of Pennsylvania v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al.Phila. Common Pleas Court October Term 1985 No. 2497 Univ. of PA directed to provide building profiles and answers to interrogatories by May 1, 1991 6/1/90 P. 11, order P. 47;
ASBESTOS / SCHOOL Mt. Lebanon School District et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. Allegheny County C. P. Ct No. GD 83-13686 Seeking new trial , Mt. Lebanon faults instruction , admission of tests 3/2/90 P. 13;
ASBESTOS AIR POLLUTION Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Resources v. U.S. Wrecking Inc. EHB No. 90-034-CP-W EHB imposes $18,500 in NESHAPS penalties against U.S. Wrecking for asbestos removal and storage 7/20/92 P. 13.
ASBESTOS AND PCB Department of General Services, Dept. of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. Cmwth Ct No. 244 M.D. 1996 USMP seeks directed verdict in Pennsylvania's action that claims asbestos fireproofing was contaminated with PCBs 6/19/00 P.10.
ASBESTOS AND PCB Department of s General Services, Department of Transportation v. United Strates Mineral Products Co.v. United States Mineral Products Co. Cmwth Ct No. 244 M.D. 1996 Defendant USMP insists high-low settlement does not constitute realignment of interests with Pennsylvania 11/8/99 P.12.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 USMP replies to nullum tempus argument, saying doctrine does not extend to Pensylvania agencies 5/8/95 P. 13c.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 USMP says nullum tempus does not apply to building in PA's asbestos case, citing lack of government function 3/20/95 P. 10.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 Judge denies PA's motion to allege that fireproofing made by USMP in 12-story state building contains PCBs 8/7/95 P. 12.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 PA insists judge was told in Nov. 1994 that review of data prompted belief that USMP's asbestos is source of PCB 2/20/95 P. 9, reply P. 55.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 Pennsylvania says tests show USMP's asbestos contains PCB; seeks to amend lawsuit over 12-story state building 2/20/95 P. 7, complaint P. 38.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 USMP denies any fireproofing ever contained PCBs, argues that grafting PCB claim will add years to PA's case 2/20/95 P. 8, response P. 47
ASBESTOS AND PCBs PA Department of General Services et al. v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 and 244 M.D. 1996 Defendants oppose Pennsylvania's effort to keep exhibits and expert testimony in asbestos-PCB case. loss' 8/9/99 P.11.
ASBESTOS AND PCBs PA Department of General Services et al. v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 and 244 M.D. 1996 Defendants oppose Pennsylvania's effort to keep exhibits and expert testimony in asbestos-PCB case. loss' 8/9/99 P.11.
ASBESTOS CLASS ACTION Prince George v USG Superior Court No. 531 Phila. 1997 Prudential says circumstances could warrant vacating class 5/20/97 P.15. Prudential says defendants were aware of intention to opt-out 6/9/97 P. 11. Building owner withdraws appeal of denial for opting out of class 3/3/97 P.10. Prince George Prudential says defendants were aware of intention to opt-out 6/9/97 P. 11. Prudential insists it opted out of tenant class in PA state court v. USG12/2/96 P.14. Class representative cautions on 36,000 sharing $7.8 million 2/2/98 P. 22. PA panel says Prudential is member of federal tenants class 12/8/97 P. 13.
ASBESTOS FLOORING Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. Congoleum Corp. et al. Commonwealth Court No. 45 M.D. 1990 Pennsylvania settles asbestos floor sanding suit with Congoleum and others for $1.2 million opinion 2/22/93 P. 11.
ASBESTOS IN BUILDINGS/ ATTORNEYS' FEES Peter Kalkus et al. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. Superior Court 1988 EDA 2000 1989 EDA 2000 Newberg-Kronfeld say award of 45 percent of counsel fees in Prince George action represents only half of firms' work 8/6/01 P. 8, opinion P. 39.
ASBESTOS IN BUILDINGS/ STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Today's Express Inc. et al. v. David M. Barkan et al. Superior Court No. 01688 Pittsburgh 1992 Superior Ct says plaintiffs could have found asbestos in building earlier by hiring expert; suit is time-barred 7/5/93 P. 8, opinion P. 27.
ASBESTOS In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Defining nationwide school class, PA judges rules VA law bars VA claims for buildings built prior to 1978 2/3/89 P.21; U.S. Gypsum contends school class jurisdiction is unsupported, claims under $10,000 are included 3/17/89 P.14; Class plaintiffs cannot simply direct defendants to mass of business records 4/21/89 P.14; All defendants except National Gypsum ask judge to decertify 5/5/89 P. 14; Defendants cite four reasons why settlement of school class action is unlikely 5/5/89 P.17; Judge says failure to establish $10,000 claim for each school member makes nationwide class defective 5/19/89 P. 15, opinion P. 54;School class plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of $1-million settlement with Lac d'Amiante du Quebec 6/2/89 P.20; Jlaintiffs in nationwide school class suit oppose stay but want to oconfer over extension of deadlines 1/5/90 P. 17; Fibreboard, Eagle-Picher join USG in seeking to appeal jurisdictional ruling in school class action 1/5/90 P. 18; Judge refuses to certify nationwide school class, says substantial common issues predominate 2/2/90 P. 12; Plaintiffs put forward plan for trifurcation 2/2/90 P. 13; Judge refuses to bar expert witnesses plaintiffs submitted and then withdrew witness lists exchanged 2/16/90 P. 15; School asbestos plaintiffs lay out case for conspiracy claim agaisnt Kaiser, Dana and other defendants 7/6/90 P. 11; National Gypsum, Kaiser Cement argues agsint conspiracy claim 7/20/90 P. 12; Judge says Kaiser waived dimsissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and Asbestospray for improper venue 7/20/90 P. 14; School class plaintiffs amend complaints to meet jurisdiction objections over $10,000 minimum 6/16/89 P.9; Judge gives final approval to $1-million settlement by Lac D-Amiante 3/2/90 P. 14; PA judge refuses to reconsider rulign that VA law bars VA claims for building built prior to 1978 3/16/90 P. 13; Judge dismisses Barnwell's individual claims 3/16/90 P. 14;
ASBESTOS- IN-BUILDINGS Cumberland Valley School District v. Hall-Kimbrell Environmental Services Inc. et al. PA Superior Court No. 372 Harrisburg 1993 Superior Court says schools' asbestos abatement claim cannot be brought under Unfair Trade Practices Act 6/20/94 P. 12, opinion P. 30.
ASBESTOS United States of America v. Fleet Factors Corp., United States of America v. Fleet Factors Corp., USCA 11thCir. No. 89-8094 Fleet Factors argues against CERCLA application to lender for asbestos cost recovery 5/5/89 P.17;
ASBESTOS AND PCBS Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 and 244 M.D. 1996 udge rejects USMP's request for longer discovery period for asbestos-PCB allegations PA says were known in 1994 9/3/96 P. 13
ASBESTOS AND PCBS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 and 244 M.D. 1996 USMP seeks longer discovery period in Pennsylvania's lawsuit alleging asbestos-related PCB contamination 8/19/96 P.13.
ASBESTOS AND PCBS Department of General Services, Department of Transportation v. United States Mineral Products Co. PA Commonwealth Court No. 284 MD 1990 sand 244 M.D. 1996 Pennsylvania opposes USMP's motion to prevent abatement of building in order to preserve evidence 7, brief P. 36.
ASBESTOS-IN-BUILDINGS Prince George v. USG Phila. Common Pls. Ct May Term 1986 No. 5388 Judge denies opt out from class of buildings with asbestos 1/6/97 P.10.
ASH DISPOSAL Empire Sanitary Landfill Inc. v. DER and Boroughs of Old Forge et al. EHB No. 94-120-W EHB says DER abused its discretion when it denied request for approval of ash protocol for landfill 11/21/94 P. 9.
ASH DISPOSAL/ BREACH OF PROMISE Joseph Paolino & Sons Inc. v. City of Philadelphia Superior Court No. 03747 Phila. 1992 Superior Court says Phila. properly withheld payment for municipal ash that was transported but never found 11/8/94 P. 8.
ASSESSMENT Grand Central Sanitaton Inc. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources EHB No. 89-615-F Failure to prepay assessment casues board to dimsiss Grand Central's appeal for lack of jurisdiction 7/6/90 P. 16;
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE Conrail Inc. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 97-166-C EHB finds environmental audit is privileged because agent was hired to assist counsel by providing technical assistance 5/10/99 P.6, opinion P. 26.
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE Conrail Inc. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 97-166-C EHB finds environmental audit is privileged because agent was hired to assist counsel by providing technical assistance 5/10/99 P.6, opinion P. 26.
ATTORNEY FEES / EHB Rohm & Haas Delaware Valley Inc. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Environmental Hearing Board No. 86-608-M Board refuses to dismiss appeal challenging NPDES permit for Rohnm & Haas plant in BUcks 4/20/90 P. 14;
ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES Foster R. College v. DER EHB No. 91-429-MJ EHB awards $10,000 in attorn12/5/94 P. 9.ey fees and expenses, finds record contains no evidence to support DER 12/5/94 P. 9.
ATTORNEY FEES Big B. Mining Co. v. PA. Dept. of Environmental Resources Environmental Hearing Board No. 83-215-G Board rules that SMCRA permittee can't recover costs and attorne fees in permit applicatin proceeding 4/6/90 P. 9, opinion P. 29;
ATTORNEY FEES Blumenthal, Lawrence v. PADER EHB NO. 89-230-F Board denies fees and expenses, saying supersedeas was not an adjudication 3/18/91 P. 14;
ATTORNEY FEES Kwalwasser, Robert v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources EHB Docket No. 84-108-M Board denies petition for $27,037 in counsel fees; getting interlocutory appeal is insufficient 1/6/89 P. 25;
ATTORNEY FEES Martin, James E. v. PA DER, EHB No. 83-121-G and others Board allows attorney's fees in appeal in which DER later withdrew order without giving rteason 8/4/89 P. 15;
ATTORNEY FEES Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Packaging Corp. of America, E.D. PA No. 87-4739, Attorney's fees of $12,500 awarded organization; judge sets rate at $100 per hour; counsel asked for $150 2/3/89 P.13;
ATTORNEY FEES/ COSTS ACT PA Department of Environmental Resources v. McDonald Land & MIning Co. Cmwlth Ct No. 429 C.D. 1995 Cmwlth Ct affirms award of $10,000 in attorney's fees and costs against DER because order was not justified 8/7/95 P. 4, opinion P. 14.
ATTORNEY FEES/ SMCRA McDonald Land & Mining Inc. and Sky Haven Coal Inc. v. PA DER Cmwlth Ct No. 231 C.D. 1995 Cmwlth Ct says SMCRA does not provide for attorney's fees and costs in enforcement actions 8/7/95 P. 4, opinion P. 19.
ATTORNEY Greenview Development Inc. v PADEP EHB No. 99-126-L ALJ declines to disqualify counsel whose firm is associated with former lawyer for borough contribution 4/26/00 P. 11.
ATTORNEY PRIVILEGE In Re Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. Insurance Coverage Litigation E.D. PA MDL 764 Texas Eastern is allowed to inquire into facts underlying two insurers' affirmative defenses 4/20/90 P. 11, opinion and order P. 56;
ATTORNEY’S FEES/ BAD FAITH
George M. Lucchino v. PA DEP and Luzerne Land Corp. Commonwealh Court No. 3201 C.D. 1998 Supreme Court denies review of ruling allowing award of fees because appeal of mining permit was in bad faith. 8/28/00 P. 9.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Ronald L. Clever v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection EHB No. 98-086-MG EHB orders discovery over attorney-client privilege; DEP seeks identity, location of client in HSCA action 8/10/98 P. 6, opinion P. 54.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Ronald L. Clever v. PADEP EHB No. 98-086-MG EHB says attorney-client privilege does not prevent disclosure of property owner in this HSCA action 11/10/98 P.8, opinion P. 30.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Ronald L. Clever v. PADEP EHB No. 98-086-MG EHB says attorney-client privilege does not prevent disclosure of property owner in this HSCA action 11/10/98 P.8, opinion P. 30.
ATTORNEYS County Commissioners, Somerset County et al. v. DER and Mostoller Landfill Inc. EHB No. 95-031-E ALJ finds no violation of professional conduct rules in former board chairman representing client before board 7/10/95 P. 8, opinion P. 55.
ATTORNEYS D-Y-M Corp. v. DEP EHB No. 99-122-R EHB allows NY attorney to represent oil well operator, citing efficiency, economic hardship, lack of prejudice 8/23/99 P.8.
ATTORNEYS D-Y-M Corp. v. DEP EHB No. 99-122-R EHB allows NY attorney to represent oil well operator, citing efficiency, economic hardship, lack of prejudice 8/23/99 P.8.
ATTORNEYS FEE AND COSTS Township of Harmar and Bauerharmar Coal Corp., Intervenor, v. DER and Minerals Techology Inc., Permittee EHB No. 90-003-MJ EHB orders DER to pay township $32,632 in fees and costs for failure to scrutinize permit for ash disposal 9/5/94 P. 8.
ATTORNEY'S FEES / SURFACE MINING ACT Smith, Pearl Marion v. PA DER No. 87-414-F Attorneys' fees is denied 11/16/90 P. 15;
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS Archie Joyner v. PA DER, Wood Processors Inc. and Art Foss Commonwealth Court Cmwlth Ct after board Cmwlth Ct sets hearing on evidence for attorney's fee after board ruled against liability under 'veil piercing' 1/11/93 P. 5, opinion P. 15.
ATTORNEYS' FEES Beth Energy Mining Company et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 87-131-MR et al. EHB bars attorneys' fees and costs for party in appeal whose expenses are paid by group not party to action 2/20/95 P. 12.
ATTORNEY'S FEES BethEnergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealt of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection PA Supreme Court No. 0052 Apeal Docket 1998 Supreme Court hears DEP'sa appel of ruling that mine operator may recover part of $552,500 in legal fees 3/8/00 P. 4, brief P. 35. BethEnergy tells Supreme Court that EHB properly awarded counsel fees under Section 5 of BMSLCA 3/8/00 P. 5. In reply, DEP says BethEnergy fails to address difference between agency's power and regulated entity's obligation 3/8/00 P. 5, brief P. 50.
ATTORNEY'S FEES BethEnergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection PA Supreme Court No. 0052 Appeal Docket 1998 Text of BethEnergy brief arguing EHB properly awarded counsel fees under §5 of BMSLCA 3/21/00 P. 9, brief P. 39.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Bethenergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection PA Supreme Court No. 0052 Appeal Docket PA Supreme Court says DEP's incorrect citation to Act cannot transform enforcement action into allowing fees 10/9/00 P. 4, opinion P. 33.
ATTORNEYS' FEES CLEAN FEES Clean Ocean v. York Third Cir. USCA No. 96-5772 Army Corps withdraws 3rd Cir. appeal of $109,992 fee ruling 1/6/97 P.11.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Kwalwasser Robert v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Cmwth Ct. No.311 C.D. 1989 Attorney's fees and costs must await final order to determine success on merits 2/26/90 P.7; opinion P. 21;
ATTORNEYS FEES Lowrey Olan B.v. East Pikeland Twp. and Valley Forge Sewer Authority Commonwealth Court No. 248 C.D. 1991 Cmwth Ct awards attorney fees to sewer authority, calling property owner's legal actions 'vexatious' 11/18/91 P. 11, opinion P. 37.
ATTORNEYS FEES Robert K. Goetz Jr. v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 2650 C.D. 1991 judge grants DER $5,605 in counsel fees; finds appeal of SWMA citation "devoid of any merit" 10/5/92 P. 9.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Sedat v. DEP Cmwth Ct No. 449 MC 1993 Cmwlth Ct assesses $18,045 in attorney's fees against DEP 1/20/97 P.8, opinion P. 37.
ATTORNEYS FEES Wood Processors Inc. and Archie Joyner v. DER EHB No. 90-442-E EHB grants $10,000 in attorneys fees against DER for effort to hold individual liable for company 5/23/94 P. 13, opinon P. 36.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Wood Processors Inc. et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-442-F EHB denies counsel fees because evidence loes not support piercing corporate veil 5/4/92 P. 10.
ATTORNEY'S FEES BethEnergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection EHB No. 90 MR Supreme Court will hear DEP's appeal of ruling that mine operator may recover part of $572,500 in legal fees 7/7/99 P.11, petition P. 49.
ATTORNEY'S FEES BethEnergy Mines Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection EHB No. 90 MR Supreme Court will hear DEP's appeal of ruling that mine operator may recover part of $572,500 in legal fees 7/7/99 P.11, petition P. 49.
ATTORNEY'S FEES George M. Lucchino v. PA DEP and Robinson Coal Co. EHB No. 96-114-R EHB allows permittee to supplement petition for award of attorney's fees, says record raises question of bad faith 6/22/98 P. 9.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Canon-McMillan School District 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-3136 3rd Cir. says lodestar must be used in Clean Air case even though attorney did not object to alternative procedure 8/24/98 P.7, opinion P. 21.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Raymond Proffitt Foundation v. PADEP and Vesta Mining Co. EHB No. 98-020-R Board denies attorney's fees because group's appeal was dismissed as moot while standing was being challenged 4/5/99 P.10.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Raymond Proffitt Foundation v. PADEP and Vesta Mining Co. EHB No. 98-020-R Board denies attorney's fees because group's appeal was dismissed as moot while standing was being challenged 4/5/99 P.10.
ATTORNEY'S FEES Bethenergy v. DEP PA SUP Ct No. 421 West Dist Allocat Docket 1996 PA Supreme Court declines to review attorney's fees appeal . 11/18/96 P.7.
ATTORNEY'S FEES/ BAD FAITH George M. Lucchino v. PA DEP and Luzerne Land Corp. Commonwealh Court No. 3201 C.D. 1998 Cmwlth Ct. allows award of fees to permittee, saying appeal of mining authorization was filed in bad faith 1/25/00 P. 6, opinion P. 22.
ATTORNEYS FEES/ COSTS ACT McDonald Land & Mining Inc. and Sky Haven Coal Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 89-096-MJ EHB says DER's failure to establish a hydrogeologic connection between site and seeps merits cost award 2/6/95 P. 6, opinon P. 23.
ATTORNEYS' FEES/ SCHOOL CLASS ACTION In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Judge says settlement moots SC law firm's challenge over distribution of $44 million in fees in asbestos class action 4/7/97 P.12a
ATTORNEYS FEES/ SMCRA McDonald Land & Mining Inc. and Sky Haven Coal Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 89-096-MJ Board declares SMCRA does not provide for award of attorneys fees and costs in enforcement actions 2/6/95 P. 5, opinion P. 30.
ATTORNEY'S FEES/ George M. Lucchino v. PA DEP and Luzerne Land Corp. EHB No. 95-185-R Board says unique facts allow $6,987.50 in attorney's fees awarded to permittee because appeal was filed in bad faith 11/10/98 P. 10, opinion P. 49.
ATTORNEY'S FEES/ George M. Lucchino v. PA DEP and Luzerne Land Corp. EHB No. 95-185-R Board says unique facts allow $6,987.50 in attorney's fees awarded to permittee because appeal was filed in bad faith 11/10/98 P. 10, opinion P. 49.
AUTHORITY / DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PA Dept. of Environmnetal Resources v. Honorable Robert Jubelirer et al PA Supreme Court No. 65 M.D. Appeals Docket 1989 Justice Nix raises concerns about DER authority to bring suit against Senate over air pollution rules 1/19/90 P. 11; opinion P. 44;
AUTHORITY / DER PA Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Honorable Robert Jubelirer et al. PA Supreme Court No. 65 M.D. Appeal Docket 1989 DER asks state Supreme Court to expedite Senate's appeal of ruling on unilateral blocking of air rules
Authority EHB No. 92-479-MJ ALJ denies supersedeas to residents appealing permit for agricultural use of sewage sludge 4/5/93 P. 10.
AUTOMATIC REVOCATION/ CONSENT DECREE Global Ecological Services Inc. et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-128-MG In this issue: EHB opinion that automatic provision in consent order to revoke permit not inherently unlawful 3/6/01 P.9, opinion P. 30.
AUTOMATIC REVOCATION/ CONSENT DECREE Global Ecological Services Inc. et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 99-055-L EHB allows Atlantic Coast Demolition to amend appeal to argue automatic revocation provision is unlawful 1/22/01 P. 8
AUTOMATIC REVOCATION/ CONSENT DECREE Global Ecological Services Inc. et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-128-MG EHB declares automatic provision in consent order to revoke Atlantic Coast Demolition's permit not inherently unlawful 2/6/01 P. 6.
AUTOMATIC REVOCATION/ CONSENT DECREE Global Ecological Services Inc. et al. v. PADEP Commonwealth Court No. 125 M.D. 2001 Cmwlth Court finds automatic provision in consent order to revoke Atlantic Coast Demolition]s permit not unlawful 12/27/01 P. 5, opinion P. 32..
BANKRUPCTY/ CERCLA IMO Penn Central Transportation Co 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 3rd Cir. allows CERCLA claims against Penn Central because reorganization was not 'liquidation type' 10/7/91 P. 5, opinion P. 36.
BANKRUPCTY/ CERCLA IMO Penn Central Transportation Co 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A.No. 90 1676 3rd Cir. allows CERCLA claims against Penn Central because reorganization was not 'liquidation type' 10/7/91 P. 5, opinion P. 36.
BANKRUPTCY CLEANUP In Re: Torwico Electronics Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-5021 3rd Circuit schedules argument Aug. 3 on whether cleanup costs are dischargeable claims in bankruptcy
BANKRUPTCY CLEANUP In Re: Torwico Electronics Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-5021 New Jersey tells 3rd Circuit that ECRA cleanup cost is not dischargeable unsecured claim in bankruptcy 4/19/93 P. 7.
BANKRUPTCY CLEANUP In Re: Torwico Electronics Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-5021 Torwico challenges NJ's argument with 3rd Circuit that cleanup cost is not dischargeable in bankruptcy 5/10/93 P. 7. Torwico tells 3rd Circuit that cleanup obligation under NJ law is dischargeable unsecured claim 3/22/93 P. 11.
BANKRUPTCY IMO Eagle Enterprises Inc. and Liberty Recovery Systems Inc. E.D. PA No. 00-1231 Judge says stay blocks alter ago and agency claims against USA Waste 6/6/01 P. 6, opinion P. 16.
BANKRUPTCY In Matter of Penn Central Transportation Co. E.D. PA No. 70-347 Judge refuses to allow CERCLA claims against bankruptcy Penn Central for Paoli railyard pollution 9/21/90 P. 6, opinion P. 58;
BANKRUPTCY Lykens v. DEP EHB No. 96-252 Appellant's bankruptcy does not affect EHB's proceedings 5/5/98 P.7, opinion P. 34.
BANKRUPTCY STAY/CLEAN STREAMS LAW Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Clark R. Ingram et al. Commonwealth Court No. 254 M.D. 1991 Cmwlth Ct judge says Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay does not apply to DER compliance orders 5/22/95 P. 4, opinion P. 28.
BANKRUPTCY/ CERCLA The Penn Central Corp. v. United States of America, Consolidiated Rail Corp., and SEPTA U.S. Supreme Court No. 91-761 Penn Central asks U.S. Supreme Court to review 3rd Circuit decision that allowed CERCLA claims 12/16/91 P. 7, petition P. 45.
BAT / BACT T.R.A.S.H. Ltd. v. PA DER, Dravo Energy Resources et al. EHB No. 89-031-W Board says federal regulations allow PSD extension without mandating BAT/BACT documentation 1/4/91 P. 7, majority opinion P. 33, dissent P. 38;
BENEFICIAL USE Cramer, William v. Pa. Dept. of Environmental Litigation EHB No. 90-018-MR Board says single violaiton of 'beneficial use approval' for asphaltic material does not justify revocation 3/16/90 P. 12;
BEST TECHNOLOGY Board of Supervisors of Middle Paxton Township v. PADER EHB No. 89-084-M EHB affirms DER's right to limit type of sewer repairs with respect to 'best technology guidance' 4/22/91 P. 13
BIDS City of Philadelphia v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 83-036-M Board says Phila.'s lack of 'good faith efforts' that allowed low bids to expire cost city $762,196 6/16/89 P.13;
BIOSOLIDS Brian and Lynn Measley et al. v. DEP et al. EHB No. 2001-146-L Board says land owners' testimony offers little insight on how sludge application will impact environment 8/6/01 P. 6.
BLASTERS' LICENSE Sysak, Anbdrew v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB Docket No. 88-499-F Board denies supersedeas in blasters' license appeal 2/3/89 P.22;
BLASTING/ SMCRA Croner Inc. v PA DER EHB No. 87-206-E EHB invalidates blasting regulations that prohibited waiver of dwelling property owner 12/16/91 P. 10.
BLUFF RECESSION Brian A. and Antionette Candela v. DEP et al. EHB No. 2000-073-L Board says DEP has no authority under Bluff Recession Act for exempting areas that have been designated hazard areas 3/20/01 P. 11
BOND (RELEASE) Fetterolf Mining Inc. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 87-035-W Board cites disputes over bond release requirements in refusing to grant summary judgment on mine 5/19/89 P.12;
BOND FOREEITURE Aloe Coal Co. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources EHB No. 86-633-E Board says Aloe Coal has standing to appeal because it was guarantor of surety company that issued bond 7/20/90 P. 11;
BOND FOREFEITURE Ziccardi v. DEP EHB No. 96-161 Board quashes appeal of DEP decision to waive bond forfeiture Finds appeal of waiver of forfeiture of bonds posted in INA was untimely filed 1/20/97 P.12.
BOND FORFEITURE . Maney Coal Co. v. PA DER EHB NO. 89-019-M Board affirms forfeiture of bonds for mining violations, discusses difficulty of pro se cases 6/15/92 P. 11.
BOND FORFEITURE Aloe Coal Co. v. PA DER, EHB No. 86-633-W Board declines to dismiss appeal of Aloe Coal's bond forfeiture under Clean Streams, mining acts 7/21/89 P. 15;
BOND FORFEITURE American States Insurance Co. v. PA DER Environmental Hearing Board No. 89-187-F Allegation that bond forfeiture notice was misaddressed is insufficient for nunc pro tunc appeal 4/20/90 P. 15;
BOND FORFEITURE Carl L. Kresge & Sons Inc. v. PADEP EHB No. 99-149-K EHB upholds DEP's forfeiture of security bond for noncoal mining; operator found to have committed violations 5/23/01 P.13
BOND FORFEITURE Laurel Ridge Coal Inc. v PA Dept. of Environmental Resources, Environmental Hearing Board No. 86-349-E Board rejects coal company's arguments that mining sites in Fayette Co. were reclaimed 5/21/90 P. 12;
BOND FORFEITURE Snyder, Robert and Jessie and AH-RS Coal Corp. v. PADER Cmwth Ct. No. 1095 CD 1990 Cmwth Ct affirms summary judgment by HBO without hearing but reverses three reclamation bonds 3/18/91 P. 5, opinion P. 48;
BOND Inman T.C. Inc. et al. v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 2131 C.D. 1991 Commonwealth Court says $97,000 closure bond for unpermitted sanitary landfill is not excessive 5/18/92 P. 5, opinion P. 27.
BOND RELEASE Carey, Ray v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources and Latimer Construction Co. EHB No. 88-521-E Board dismisses bond release appeal as untimely 8/3/90 P. 13;
BOND RELEASE John M. Riddle Jr. v. DEP and Hepburnia Coal Co. EHB No. 98-142-MG Wwith 2000-001-MG EHB grants summary judgment to mining operator in part, denies in part, in surface land 6/6/01 P. 12.
BOND RELEASE Jonas and Lydia Zook v. DEP and Hillltop Mining Ince. EHB No. 2000-153-R EHB says factual issues exist regarding damage from mine blasting 8/6/01 P. 11
BOND RELEASE Judith Anne Wayne v. DEP and Robinson Coal Co. EHB No. 98-175-R EHB overturns bond release for mine, finds DEP failed to follow its regulations requiring maintenance of haul road 8/28/00P 14.
BOND RELEASE/ POSTMINING USE George M. Lucchino v. DEP and Robinson Coal Co., Permitee EHB No. 98-166-R EHB finds appellant failed to prove mine operator did not restore surface mining sites to postmining land use 5/26/00 P. 8.
BOND Alfred Guerrieri Jr. And Ann Guerrieri v. PADEP and Bulldog Excavating EHB No. 98-146-R EHB allows amended notice of appeal because appellants likely could not have found objections before filing appeal 11/23/98 P.9.
BOND Alfred Guerrieri Jr. And Ann Guerrieri v. PADEP and Bulldog Excavating EHB No. 98-146-R EHB allows amended notice of appeal because appellants likely could not have found objections before filing appeal 11/23/98 P.9.
BOND FORFEITURE/ FINALITY Allegro Oil & Gas Co. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 98-021-C EHB dismisses appeal of declaration of bond forefeiture, says appeal should have been from order to submit plan. 11/23/98 P.10
BOND FORFEITURE/ FINALITY Allegro Oil & Gas Co. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 98-021-C EHB dismisses appeal of declaration of bond forefeiture, says appeal should have been from order to submit plan. 11/23/98 P.10
BOND/APPEAL Twelve Vein Coal Co. v.PA DER, Commonwealth Court No. 876 C.D. 1988 Commonwealth Court says EHB must determine company's ability to post bond after claimaing impecunity 8/4/89 P. 7, opinion P. 61;
BOND/TIRES Reinert v. DEP EHB No. 97-012 EHB denies supersedeas for guarantor of surety bonds 5/5/98 P. 9.
BONDS (PER ACRE LIABILITY) Martin, James E. v. American Insurance Co. v. Pennsylvania, EHB Docket No. 85-120-R DER must determine bond amount forfeited if bonds are written with a per acre liability 1/6/89 P. 17; board says it will not rehear case where plaintiff fails to show legal grounds were not considered 2/3/89 P.21;
BONDS (PRE-PAY) Martin, James E. v. PA Dept. of Environ. Resources, EHB No. 88-365-W Board refuses to allow appeals in which appellant claimed inabilty to prepay assessment or post bonds 5/19/89 P.13;
BONDS Dunkard Creek Coal Inc. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-015-W Appeal of coal company dismissed for failure to prepay assessment or post bonds 2/3/89 P.16;
BONDS Joseph J. Peles v. DEP and Hamilton Brothers Coal Inc., Permittee EHB No. 2000-008-C Board dismisses forfeiture appeal for failure to respond 11/27/00 P. 12,
BONDS Marsolino Coal & Coke Inc. v. DER EHB No. 94-285-E EHB rules forfeiture of bonds is justified because miner failed to continue treating mine discharge to two streams 5/22/95 P. 12.
BONDS Martin James E. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Cmwth Ct. No. 101 C.D. 1989 Cmwth Ct. says criminal allegations and insolvency have no placve in bond forfeiture appeal 2/16/90 P. 6; opinion P. 47;
BONDS Roswel Coal Co. Inc. v. PA. Dept. of Envir. Resources EHB No. 88-053-R Board insists that failure to prepay assessments or timely post appeal bonds precludes jurisdiction 3/3/89 P.11;
BONDS/ CREDIBILITY Judith Anne Wayne v. PADEP EHB No. 98-175-R EHB says credibility on whether mining activity adversely affected water supplies bars summary judgment for DEP PA 6/21/99 P. 8.
BONDS/ CREDIBILITY Judith Anne Wayne v. PADEP EHB No. 98-175-R EHB says credibility on whether mining activity adversely affected water supplies bars summary judgment for DEP PA 6/21/99 P. 8.
BONDS/ REPLACEMENT Stanley L. Grazis v. DEP EHB No. 2000-017-K EHB says DEP acted contrary to law in failing to review bonds proffered as replacement for $25,000 blanket bond 9/29/00 P. 13.
BOTTLED WATER Rannels, Carol v. PA DER EHB No. 90-110-F DEE must prove company serves at least 25 customers 12/21/90 P. 18;
BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM Weston Services Inc. v. NUS Corp. ED PA No. 91-1133 Judge denies preliminary injunction barring NUS from ending Weston Services' contract 4/8/91 P. 9, opinion P. 48;
BREACH OF CONTRACT Fallowfield v. Strunk 3rd Cir USCA No. 94-2019 3rd Cir. denies sellers' petition for rehearing in sale of land 10/7/96 P.11.
BREACH OF CONTRACT Schreck, David D. v. Codorus Township et al, Commonwealth Court No. 2395 C.D. 1988 and related case Commonwealth Court says township soil testing is immune from breach of contract because it was not goods 6/16/89 P.7;
BREACH OF CONTRACT Fallowfield Development Corp. v. Betty R. Strunk et al. v. The Byrn Mawr Trust Co. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-2019 Sellers ask 3rd Circuit to rehear ruling that affirmed $675,000 verdict for purchaser of contaminated site 9/16/96 P.6.
BRIEFING Myron A. Yourshaw et al. v. PADEP and Reading Anthracite Co., Permittee EHB No. 97-039-MG EHB dismisses appeal of surface mining permit issue to Reading, cites failure to file pre-hearing 12/21/98 P.10
BRIEFING Myron A. Yourshaw et al. v. PADEP and Reading Anthracite Co., Permittee EHB No. 97-039-MG EHB dismisses appeal of surface mining permit issue to Reading, cites failure to file pre-hearing 12/21/98 P.10
BURDEN OF PROOF / EHB Monessen Inc. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources, Environmental Hearing Board No. 88-486-E Board rules that DER bears burden of proof in appela from more stringent NPDES permit limitations 6/1/90 P. 13, opinion P. 42;
BURDEN OF PROOF Luzern Coal Corp. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources EHB No. 87-481-E Burden of proof shifted to two mining companies since neither disputers involvement with property 1/19/90 P. 14;
BURDEN OF PROOF Luzerne Coal Corp. et al. v. PA Dept. of Enviornmental Resources EHB No. 87-481-E EHB refuses to reconsider recent order shifting burden of proof to mining companies 2/2/90 P. 14;
BURDEN OF PROOF Western Pennsylvania Water Co. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources, Environmental Hearing Board No. 88-325-E Board refuses to shift burden of proof to DER in appeal from water alloca ion permits 6/15/90 P. 12;
BURDEN ON PROOF Conrail Inc. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 97-166-C EHB says DEP cannot shift burden of proof to Conrail when site ownership or participation in contamination are issues 5/10/99 P. 8, opinion P. 30.
BURDEN ON PROOF Conrail Inc. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Protection EHB No. 97-166-C EHB says DEP cannot shift burden of proof to Conrail when site ownership or participation in contamination are issues 5/10/99 P. 8, opinion P. 30.
BURNING Stine Farms and Recycling Inc. etc. v. DEP EHB No. 99-228-L Board finds exemption for agriculture does not apply, sets $115,000 penalty for open burning under Air Pollution Act 9/12/01 P. 8
BUYER'S 'AS IS' LIABILITY PBS Coals Inc. v. Burnham Coal Co., PA Superior Court No. 898 Pittsburgh 1988 Court holds property buyer to 'as is' clause in case of first impression in state 6/2/89 P.14, opinion P. 65;
BYSTANDER EXPOSURE Sigmund Fried et al. v. SunGard Recovery Services Inc. E.D. PA No. 95-878 Contractor says medical monitoring claims in bystander exposure case are unsupported by plaintiff's arguments 9/16/96 P.14
CAPTION Throop v.DEP EHB No. 97-164 EHB denies landfill's request to remove association's name 12/22/97 P. 10.
CARDINAL CHANGE Roy F. Weston Services Inc. v. Halliburton NUS Environmental Corp. E.D. PA No. 91-113 Judge bars Weston from arguing that 'cardinal change' in contract resulted from non-pumpable solids 3/22/93 P. 9.
CASES 1,440 environmental cases pending in state 1/6/89 P. 8;
CAUSATION In Re: Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation USCA 3rd Cir. No.88-1973 3rd Cir. allows SEPTA to argue for Paoli rehearing on prima facie sufficiency of causation evidence 11/16/90 P. 4, supplement to petition P. 19;
CAUSATION LINK Thompson & Phillips Clay Co. v. PA DER Cmwth Ct No. 436 C.D. 1990 Cmwth Ct says Clean Streams Law makes mine operator liable for pollution even without causation 12/21/90 P. 7, opinion P. 19;
CAUSATION/ STANDING NPDES Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Inc. and Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron Inc. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 92-5161 Magnesium Elektron faults 3rd Circuit for concluding cause is irrelevant to standing in environmental cases 1/11/93 P. 7, order and petition P. 50.
CAUSATION/ STANDING Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Inc. and Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 3rd Cir. rejects argument that ruling in environmental case makes causation irrelevant to group's standing 1/25/93 P. 9.
CECLA Sites EPA designated 12 more Superfund sites in PA 4/17/89 P.19; EPA allows initial $250,000 Superfund money for work at E-Z Chemical site in Phila. 4/21/89 P.18; Wade site in Delaware County deleted from NPL list 4/21/89 P.19; $11.6 million decomtamination now compele on Lansdowne site, only Superfund 'house' in nation 6/16/89 P.15;
CERC;A/EVIDENCE U.S. A v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals INc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Testimony on ink contents in '60s and '70s bars dismissal. Judge finds testimony on silk screen ink reasonable to a degree of scientific certainty 12/6/93 P.7, order P. 40. EPA's warning to remedial workers on ingestion bars dismissal 12/6/93 P. 8, order P. 41. Testimony did not show 'typical garage waste' as hazardous 12/6/93 P. 9, order P. 43. Testimony of brake parts contamination bars dismissal 12/6/93 P. 10, order P. 45.
CERCL At Hazardous Substances Alcan v USA US Supreme Ct No 96-1494 Alcan asks Supreme Court to review divisibility of harm 5/20/97 P. 4, brief P. 16.
CERCL/Retroactive Liability Alcan v.USA US Supreme Court No. 96-1494 Three companies ask Supreme Court to rule on retroactive liability 5/20/97 P. 5.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge approves decree in which eight generator defendants agree to pay up to $7.4 million for Keystone landfill cleanup 9/20/99 P. 4, opinion P. 17; Judge approves decree with 376 third and fourth party Keystone defendants that provides for $4.25 million 9/20/99 P. 5, opinion P. 22; Judge approves de micromis settlements with 195 parties based on volume of substances sent to Keystone landfill 9/20/99 P. 7, decree P. 25.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Eight generator defendants see their right s compromised 9/7/98 P. 7, brief P. 47
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge approves decree in which eight generator defendants agree to pay up to $7.4 million for Keystone landfill cleanup 9/20/99 P. 4, opinion P. 17; Judge approves decree with 376 third and fourth party Keystone defendants that provides for $4.25 million 9/20/99 P. 5, opinion P. 22; Judge approves de micromis settlements with 195 parties based on volume of substances sent to Keystone landfill 9/20/99 P. 7, decree P. 25.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 U.S. says Keystone defendants are in 'limbo' and unable to reach agreement with DEP, Waste Management ESB 9/7/98 P. 8, report P. 49.
CERCLA Douglas Martin et al. v. United States of America E.D. PA No. 95-CV-2543 Judge says homeowners had to prove contaminants from Naval Center are present, not that they may have spread 9/3/96 P. 5, opinion P. 34.
CERCLA § 107 Adhesives Research Inc. et al. v. American Inks and Coatings Corp. et al. M.D. PA No. 95-1975 Citing 'contradictory' precedent, judge says PRPs have standing to bring CERCLA §107 action to recover costs 8/19/96 P. 4, opinion P. 16.
CERCLA (PRIVATE) Con-Tech Sales Defined Benefit Trust and Synthes (USA) v. Gilbert G. Cockerham et al. ED PA No. 87-5137 Judges denies summary judgment to present and former steel plant owners in private CERCLA suit 2/19/91 P. 5, opinion P. 13;
CERCLA / ACCESS TO ADJACENT LAND United States of America v. Isaac L. Fisher et al. E.D. PA No. 90-2180 U.S. files dismissal notice in injunctive acitn to get access to farm near Blosenski Superfund site 5/21/90 P. 9, memorandum P. 49;
CERCLA / ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES United States of America v. Aluminum Company of America et al. E.D. PA No. 89-7421 Magistrate orders construction contractor group, 28 third parties told to align with one of five groups 12/7/90 P.6, order P. 49;
CERCLA / CONSENT DECREE United States of America v. Nicolet Inc. and T&N plc E.D. PA NO. 85-3060 Judge terminates consent decree with Nicolet over cleanup of CERCLA asbestos site in Ambler 6/1/90 P. 11, order P. 37;
CERCLA / CONTRIBUTION In Re: Sharon Steel Corp. Debtor; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Sharon Steel Corp. 3rd Cir. No. 90-3274 Third Circuit orders court to reconsider rejection of ARCO's contribution claims against Sharon Steel in Utah 12/7/90 P. 6, opinion P. 61;
CERCLA / DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Rohm & Haas Co. et al. D NJ No. 85-4386 Magistrate allows Manor Care to depose EPA but bars discovery on de minimis settlement 7/6/90 P. 8;
CERCLA / DISPOSAL States, John and Bridget et al. v. BFG Electroplating and Manufacturing Co. W.D. PA No. 86-2093 Judge affirms ruling that BFG cinder block sale was 'disposal' and thus 'release' under CERCLA 3/2/90 P. 4, opinion on reconsideration P. 46; first opinion P. 49;
CERCLA / FUTURE COSTS Unied States of America v Terry Shaner and General Bat tery E.D. PA No. 85-1372 Judge rules Brown site defendants liable for post and future cleanup costs that are consistent with NCP 7/6/90 P. 4; opinion P. 18;
CERCLA / OPERATOR United States of America v. National Bank of Commonwealth and Season-All Industires Inc., W.D. PA No. 89-2127 U.S. agrees to dismiss Season-All aftr judge finds failure t show lessee controlled outside of building 7/20/90 P. 6; stipulation and order P. 18;
CERCLA / PREEMPTION Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Caldwell Trucking Co. Oinc. Et al. D NJ No. 00-5463 (DMC) Finding CERCLA does not completely preempt state law, judge remands Caldwell Trucking PRP suit to NJ state court 5/23/01 P. 9.
CERCLA / RES JUDICATA United States of America v. Aluminum Company of America et al. E.D. PA No. 89-7421 Judge says U.S. claim against Moyer Landfill operator is not precluded by other suits on basis of res judicata 12/7/90 P.5, opinion P. 47;
CERCLA / SCRAP METAL Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3-CV-91-1714 Stephen A. Shamnoski et al. V. PG Energy et al. Superior Court No. 1274 MDA 1999, and other appeals. Superior Court finds PG Energy negligent per se for failure to warn of hurricane flooding pursuant to Dam Safety Act 12/11/00 P. 4, petition P. 12.
CERCLA / SECTION 104(E) United States of America v. Ernest Barkman E.D. PA No. 90-7313 Defendant says CERCLA Section 104(e) data requests are beyond scope if legislative intent of CERCLA 1/4/91 P. 10, complaint P. 45, answer P. 49;
CERCLA / STOCKHOLDERS A.M. Murray Inc. et al. v. T.I. United States Ltd. et al. E.D. PA No. 90-2024 CERCLA suit allowed against stockholders of firm that sold Bristol site despite indemnity agreement 9/7/90 P. 4, opinion P. 17;
CERCLA /ASBESTOS 3550 Stevens Creek Associates v. Barclays Bank of California, USCA 9th Cir. No 88-15503 Justice Department's brief says CERCLA does not bar private parties from recovering asbestos building costs 4/21/89 P.12, amicus brief P. 52;
CERCLA /CONTINUING OF ENTERPRISE THEORY United States of America v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge finds lack of stockholders to support successor liability 3/22/93 P. 8, opinion P. 44.
CERCLA CHAPTER 11 Penn Central Corp. v. United States of America, Consolidated Rail Corp. et al. U.S. Suprerne Court No. 91-761 SEPTA, Conrail ask Supreme Court not to review ruling allowing CERCLA claims against Penn Central 1/6/92 P. 7, brief P. 25.
CERCLA CITIZEN SUITS Clinton County v. EPA US Supreme Ct 97-541 Supreme Court declines to review CERCLA citizens' suit ruling 1/19/98 P.6.
CERCLA CLAIMS/ BANKRUPTCY Penn Central Corp. v. United States of America et al. U.S. Supreme Court No. 91-761 Supreme Court refuses to review ruling that allows CERCLA claims against reorganized company 3/9/92 P. 13.
CERCLA CONTRACT United States of America for the use of Gorski Associates Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 93-2608 Judge sets trial in Moyer contract dispute involving supplier of fill and Chemical Waste Management 2/21/94 P. 7, opinion P. 13.
CERCLA CONTRIBUTION Harley-Davidson Inc. v. Minstar Inc. and AMF Inc. 7th Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-2171 Harley-Davidson is barred by indemnification agreement from contribution for PA site cleanup, 7th Cir. declares 12/19/94 P. 7, opinionP. 63.
CERCLA CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Terry Shaner et al. v. General Battery Corp. etc. E.D. PA No. 85-1372 Counsel for Glosser in decision that recognized right to jury trial for CERCLA contribution claim 8/10/92 P. 12.
CERCLA DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENTS Gould Inc. v. A&M Battery and Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 91-1814 Gould asks court to approve Gould's settlements with de minimis defendants, despite opposition of others12/18/95 P. 6. Brief P. 41.
CERCLA DEFENSES United States of America v. Marisol Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 88-1640 Four defendants are allowed to argue divisibility of harm and equitable defenses 1/5/90 P.10; opinion P. 32;
CERCLA Fleet Factors Corp. v. United States of America U.S. Supreme Court No. 90-504 Supreme Court refuses to review Fleet Factors 2/1/91 P. 13;
CERCLA Fleet Factors Corp. v. United States of America U.S. Supreme Court No. 90-504U.S. suggests Supreme Court await legislative remedy on lender's liability for disposal under CERCLA 1/4/91 P. 17;
CERCLA FMC Corp. v. U.S. Department of Commerce e t al. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 92-1945 3rd Cir. still considering U.S. motion to rehear opinion on CERCLA liability of U.S. for World War II site 2/21/94 P. 10.
CERCLA FMC Corp. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, e t al. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 92-1945 United States says 3rd Circuit should address liability of U.S. as operator and arranger, not just one or other 6/6/94 P. 10. U.S. will not ask Supreme Court to review liability of U.S. for cleanup of private World War II facility 10/24/94 P. 8.
CERCLA FMC Corp. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, e t al. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 92-19453rd Cir. grants U.S.'s motion to hear in banc CERCLA opinion on liability of U.S. for World War II facility 3/7/94 P. 11, order P. 45.
CERCLA FMC Corp. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 92-1945 3rd Cir. denies reconsideration of U.S. joint and several liability under CERCLA for war plant contamination 2/7/94 P. 11.
CERCLA Horsedead Industries Inc. v. Paramount Cxommunications Inc. 3rd Cir. USCA No. 99-3865 3d Cir. says indemnity can estop CERCLA contribution claim 7/24/01 P. 11.
CERCLA HSCA The Reading Co. v. The City of Philadelphia et al. E.D. PA No. 91-2377 Judge denies dismissal of Reading's HSCA, CERCLA claims against SEPTA, Conrail, Phila. and 3 counties 5/24/93 P. 4, OPINION P. 13.
CERCLA Indemnity SC Holdings v. A.A.A D NJ No. 95-0947 Judge says contract entitles Campbell Soup to indemnity and defense Soil 1/5/98 P.9, order P. 43.
CERCLA Indemnity Paramount v. Horsehead NY County Supreme Court , Appellate Div. No. 59675 Purchaser of assets is liable for cleanup under sale agreement 7/21/97 P. 13.
CERCLA LIABILITY / RAIL ACT The Penn Central Corp. v. The United States of America, Consolidated Rail Corp. et al. Special Court Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 Special Court finds SEPTA, Conrail, Amtrak are not liable for prior PCB contamination of Paoli railyard 9/5/94 P. 7.
CERCLA LIABILITY DIVISIBILITY America v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 91-5481 3rd Circuit denies United States' petition for rehearing on PRP's right to establishment apportionment of harm 8/24/92 P. 4, order P. 24; petition P. 25; response P. 33.
CERCLA LIABILITY DIVISIBILITY United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 91-5481 3rd Cir.: PRP's share of response costs may be based on extent of harm that can be reasonably established 6/1/92 P. 4, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA Liability Gould v. A&M Battery MD PA 91-1714 Judge holds scrap battery suppliers partially liable for cleanup 9/22/97 P. 4, opinion P. 15.
CERCLA MISREPRESENTATION Fallowfield Corp. v. Leonard Strunk et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-1507/ 1785/1794 Judge denies both sides' post-trial motions to modify findings following $675,000 verdict against Strunks 9/19/94 P. 11.
CERCLA 'OPERATOR' United States of America v. National Bank of the Commonwealth and Season-All Industries Inc. W.D. PA No. 89-2127 Judge says U.S. fails thus far to establish that lessee Season-All had control over outside of building 5/21/90 P. 6, opinion P. 18;
CERCLA OVERSIGHT COSTS United States of America v. Louis Serafini and City of Scranton v. Lackawanna Refuse Removal Inc. M.D. PA No. 3:cv-86-1591 Judge finds that CERCLA bars U.S. reimbursement for oversight costs in private party remedial action 1/23/95 P. 4, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA Oversight U.S.A. v. Rohm and Haas Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92-1517 3rd Cir. bars EPA oversight costs for private cleanups; says EPA cannot bill Rohm & Haas and others for overseeing cleanup of landfill 9/6/93 P. 4, opinion P. 12.
CERCLA PENALTIES/ CHAPTER 11 United States v. Sugarhouse Realty Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 85-4829 Judge rules that automatic bankruptcy stay does not block $1.1-million judgment in CERCLA penalties 12/20/93 P. 6, opinion P. 39.
CERCLA SETTLEMENT United States of America and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. A&D Recycling Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 99-1332 EPA and DEP file consent decree with 40 more parties over cleanup of Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting site 8/23/99 P.6, decree P. 20.
CERCLA SETTLEMENT United States of America and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. A&D Recycling Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 99-1332 EPA and DEP file consent decree with 40 more parties over cleanup of Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting site 8/23/99 P.6, decree P. 20.
CERCLA SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Berks Associates et al. E.D. PA No. 91-4868 22 parties - 14 companies and eight federal agencies - agree to reimburse EPA $13.8 million for Douglassville site 4/9/01 P. 8, excerpt of consent decree P. 37.
CERCLA TREBLE DAMAGES Dexter v. Cosan 3rd Cir. USCA No. 97-5153 Shareholders defend treble damages against 'recalcitrant' party 9/8/97 P. 7.
CERCLA United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum et al., E.D. PA No. 88-4970 Defendants in McAdoo site case given to Feb. 27, 1989 to join third parties in Gov't's CERCLA lawsuit 2/17/89 P.9; Kalama Chemical argues that Gov't has affirmative obligation 4/7/89 P.8, memorandum P. 28; Gov't's motion P.40; International Flavors, S&W Waste name eight third-party defendants in McAdoo site case 4/21/89 P.6; Judge orders Schultz Electroplating to reply within 10 days to EPA document request 5/19/89 P.10; Government's failure to plead alter ego theory in compalint bars discovery of Kalama subsidiary in McAdoo case 10/6/89 P.4, memorandum and order P. 21; U.S.'s appeals McAdoo corporate veil ruling, still seeking to use 'alter ego' theory on Kalama 11/17/89 P.4 ,U.S. appeal brief P. 31, Kalama's response P. 39; Kalama asks for summary judgment, cites U.S.'s failure after 16 months to show McAdoo connection 11/17/89 P. 6, motion and brief P. 44, U.S. opposition P. 48;
CERCLA United States of America v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge says Kleinert's may have arranged disposal for company of which it was major shareholder 12/20/93 P. 4, opinion P. 14.
CERCLA United States of America v. Fleet Facxtors Corp. U.S.C.A. 11th Cir. No. 89-8094 11th Cir. tightens Mirabile standard, declared lender may be laible if it could affect disposal decisions 6/15/90 P.8, opinion P. 48;
CERCLA United States of America v. Iacavazzi, M.D. PA No. 89-0164 DER says state can't be countersued under CERCLA and HSCA for list suggseting waste site in 1970s 9/15/89 P.4, state's brief of CERCLA P. 18, state's brief on HSCA P. 35;Defendants say DER is liable for HSCA counterclaims because it certified Lackawanna County site for waste 10/20/89 P.4, brief P. 37; DER is liable for CERCLA counterclaims because it 'arranged for disposal,' other defendants say 10/20/89 P.6;
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Third-party defendants assert that consent decree is 'fair, reasonable and faithful' to CERCLA objectives 9/7/98 P. 6, brief P. 45.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge dissolves injunction so that Keystone parties' assets can go toward $5.5-million cleanup of landfill 12/11/00 P. 8, motion, order 24, 27
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 In this issue: 'General provisions' of EPA agreement for Keystone landfill owners to control contamination source 10/23/00 P. 11
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Keystone Sanitation landfill owners agree to cleanup to control source of contamination at cost of $5.5 million 10/9/00 P. 10.
CERCLA United States of America v. Louis Serafini et al, M.D. PA No. 86-1592 Scranton loses bid to have liability for Taylor site withdrawn; city failed to respond to litigation 3/3/89 P.10;
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 U.S. says Keystone defendants are in 'limbo' and unable to reach agreement with DEP, Waste Management ESB 9/7/98 P. 8, report P. 49.
CERCLA United States of America vc. Alcan Aluminum et al., E.D. PA No. 88-4970 Defendants in McAdoo site case given to Feb. 27, 1989 to join third parties in Gov't's CERCLA lawsuit 2/3/89 P.9; Kalama Chemical argues that Gov't has affirmative obligation 4/7/89 P.8, memorandum P. 28; Gov't's motion P.40; Internaitonal Flavors, S&W Waste name eight third-party defendants in McAdoo site case 4/21/89 P.6; Judge orders Schultz Electroplaintg to reply within 10 days to EPA document request 5/19/89 P.10;
CERCLA United States of Anerica v. Nicolet Inc., E.D. PA No. 86-3060 Gov't cites further basis for alleging T&N's liability as mortgagee of asbestos-containing property 1/6/89 P. 22; Judges orders depositon of former T&N chairman in England under FRCO in CERCLA suit 1/20/89 P. 7, order P. 60; Stipulaiton and protective order between U.S. and T&N over minutes, Bateman depositon is filed 2/3/89 P.13; Chapter 11 plan allows no distribution for asbestos building claims 4/7/89 P.17; U.S. asks judge to declare asbestos waste hazardous substance under CERCLA 5/5/89 P.9;T&N trial on June 5 will focus on level of activity required for mortgagee's CERCLA asbestos liability 6/2/89 P.4, opinion P. 21; Judge grants U.S. motion to compel admissions by T&N in asbestos CERCLA site case 6/2/89 P.7; Judge rules asbestos is hazardfousd substance under CERCLA 'ireespective of volume or concentration' 6/16/89 P.8, opinion P. 35;
CERCLA CERCLA/ INDEMNITY SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Rohm and Haas Co. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 95-1664 3rd Cir. rejects SmithKline's petition for reharing of ruling which held Rohm and Haas is not liable under agreement 8/19/96 P.7, petition P. 33.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Waste Management says $4.25 million cash-out payment by 376 third and fourth-party defendants is premature 9/7/98 P.5, brief P. 34.
CERCLA Dexter v. Cosan 3rd Cir. 97-5152 Intervenor NJ tells 3rd Cir. that treble damages are warranted 9/22/97 P.10.
CERCLA Keystone Coke Co. and Vesper Corp. v. H. Donald Pasquale, Haploid Corp. et al. E.D. PA No. 97-6074 Judge allows environmental cross claim that was filed as counterclaim. 3/15/99 P. 5, opinion P. 30.
CERCLA Keystone Coke Co. and Vesper Corp. v. H. Donald Pasquale, Haploid Corp. et al. E.D. PA No. 97-6074 Judge allows environmental cross claim that was filed as counterclaim. 3/15/99 P. 5, opinion P. 30.
CERCLA Two Rivers Terminal, L.P. v. Chevron USA Inc. M.D. PA No. 1:CV-97-1595 Judge allows Chevron's counterclaims against terminal, cites evidence that activity was not complete until 1996 5/24/99 P.11, opinion P. 47.
CERCLA Two Rivers Terminal, L.P. v. Chevron USA Inc. M.D. PA No. 1:CV-97-1595 Judge allows Chevron's counterclaims against terminal, cites evidence that activity was not complete until 1996 5/24/99 P.11, opinion P. 47.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 U.S. lodges final set of 34 de micromis settlements in Keystone Landfill case for nominal sum of $1.00 1/19/99 P.9, decree P. 49.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 U.S. lodges final set of 34 de micromis settlements in Keystone Landfill case for nominal sum of $1.00 1/19/99 P.9, decree P. 49.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge extends stay of discovery in Keystone Landfill until Dec. 4; final set of 34 de micromis settlements to be filed 11/10/98 P. 6, report P. 23.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge extends stay of discovery in Keystone Landfill until Dec. 4; final set of 34 de micromis settlements to be filed 11/10/98 P. 6, report P. 23.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Third-party defendants in Keystone Landfill case ask that consent decrees be filed simultaneously with various parties 5/24/99 P.15.
CERCLA United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Third-party defendants in Keystone Landfill case ask that consent decrees be filed simultaneously with various parties ' 5/24/99 P.15.
CERCLA / CONSENT DECREE United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 U.S. and DEP move for consent decree with 376 settling third and fourth party defendants in Keystone Landfill 9/7/98 P. 4, brief P. 13.
CERCLA RESPONSE COSTS Fallowfield Development Corp. v. Betty R. Strunk et al. v. The Byrn Mawr Trust Co. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-2019 3rd Cir. affirms award to purchaser of site that was later found contaminated plus forgiveness of amount due . 9/3/96 P. 7, opinion P. 43.
CERCLA RETROACTIVE United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 95-7570 3rd Cir. affirms ruling that once hazardous substance is added to oily emulsion, emulsion itself become hazardous 9/16/96 P. 5, brief P. 39.
CERCLA SETTLEMENT United States of America and Commonwealth of PA v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al. v. Penn Central Corp. E.D. PA No. 86-1094 Despite objection by Penn Central's successor, judge finds $1.45-million settlement, 16 percent of costs, is fair 4/19/99 P. 5, opinion P. 37.
CERCLA SETTLEMENT United States of America and Commonwealth of PA v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al. v. Penn Central Corp. E.D. PA No. 86-1094 Despite objection by Penn Central's successor, judge finds $1.45-million settlement, 16 percent of costs, is fair 4/19/99 P. 5, opinion P. 37.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 Occidental Chemical says failure to produce evidence of damage justifies refusal to apply alternative liability 6/7/99 P. 5.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 Occidental Chemical says failure to produce evidence of damage justifies refusal to apply alternative liability 6/7/99 P. 5.
CERCLA/ SECURED LENDER United States of America v. Marvin Pesses et al. W.D. PA No. 90-0654 Judge adopts opinion that lender is not liable in first case in PA since Congress provided secured lender exemption Board denies $35,264 in costs and attorneys fees in case in which DEP erred in charging operator with violation 9/7/98 P.9, order P. 53.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 3rd Cir. finds insufficient evidence for applying doctrine of alternative liability to CERCLA claim but leaves door open 11/22/99 P. 4,
CERCLA/ AUTO PAINT United States of America v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge says hearsay statement is inadmissible to show auto dealer disposed of used oil filters at landfill 10/18/93 P. 5, opinion P. 20.
CERCLA/ BANKRUPTCY United States of America v. Louis Serafini et al.v. Lackawanna Refuse Removal Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 3 CV-36-1591 CERCLA claims against reorganized company are allowed in Scranto's third-party complaint 2/3/92 P. 4, opinion P. 33.
CERCLA/ BIFURCATION Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge denies U.S. and Witco motion to bifurcate trials for liability and for EPA's remedy for Myers site in NJ 5/8/95 P. 8, opinion P. 17.
CERCLA/ CONSPIRACY United States of America v. American Recovery Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3975 Fiore moves to recall mandate, asks U.S. Supreme Court to review ruling that denied conspiracy to close business 1/8/01 P. 6.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Compacting Systems Corp. et al. D NJ No. 96-5349 (KSH) Magistrate judge reinstates order granting settlors' claim on CERCLA contribution liability against Keuffel & Esser 12/27/99 P.6, opinion P. 15.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Compaction Systems Corp. et al. D NJ No. 96-5349 (KSH) Magistrate judge says settlement by PRP with U.S. satisfies common liability for settling parties to pursue contribution 2/10/00 P.13.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Marvin Pesses et al. W.D. PA No. 90-0654 Judge declares Bay Metal liable for $1.49 million share of settling parties' Superfund costs at Metcoa Radiation Site 4/11/00 P. 4, opinion P. 14.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Marvin Pesses et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-2248 Bay Metals moves to appeal liability for $1.49 million share of settling parties' Superfund costs at Metcoa Radiation Site 5/26/00 P. 7.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge allows limited disclosure of EPA-Elf Atochem settlement documents; at issue is liability of Witco 12/5/94 P. 6, stipulation P. 30.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Witco v. Jeanne V. Beekhuit et al. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 93-7837 3rd Cir. rules three-year CERCLA statute of limitations does not preempt state nonclaim statutes as to estates 11/7/94 P. 4, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA/ CROSSCLAIM Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries Inc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 Judge refuses to dismiss Lewis Industries' counterclaim against Bethlehem Iron Works, citing 'interest of justice' 8/7/95 P. 9, opinion P. 56.
CERCLA/ DAMAGES Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al. D NJ No. 89-1031 Judge allocates damages to current owner and against former owner for remediation activities
CERCLA/ DISCOVERY United States of America v. Union Corp. et al. E.D. PA No. 80-1589 EPA insists defendants have no legal basis for discovery into reasonablenss of site remedy under language of CERCLA 3/6/01 P. 4, brief P. 10. Metal Bank defendants seek discovery of persons who rendered record of decision and factual bases for response 3/6/01 P. 5, notice P. 16.
CERCLA/ HSCA Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries Inc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 Judge allows trial expert for defendant although he was retained in another case by firm representing plaintiffs 7/10/95 P. 12. opinion P. 51.
CERCLA/ HSCA Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries Inc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 Judge says defendant waited too long to join officer and companies to Bethlehem Steel Works recovery action 7/10/95 P. 10, opinion P. 49.
CERCLA/ HSCA Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries Inc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 Judge says Johnston Industries assumed liabilities of entities that merged into it under CERCLA claim 7/10/95 P. 9, opinion P. 39.
CERCLA/ HSCA Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries lnc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 . Judge refuses to dismiss Lewis Industries from suit by Bethlehem Iron Works, citing hazardous substances 7/10/95 P. 11.
CERCLA/ HSCA Tri-County Business v. Clow Corp. E.D. PA No. 90-5845~ . Judge says hazardous substances in material at site were not enough to trigger CERCLA or HSCA claims 10/19/92 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CERCLA/ HSCA/ FRAUD CLAIMS Fallowfield Development Corp. et al. v. Leonard R. Strunk et al. E.D. PA 89-8644 -~ Judge refuses to bar evidence of alleged fraud in suit brought by buyers of property with hazardous waste 11/9/92 P. 9, opinion P. 29.
CERCLA/ INDEMNITY SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Rohm and Haas Co. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 95-1644 Rohm and Haas seeks 3d Cir. review of ruling that sales agreement makes company liable under successor liability 8/7/95 P. 11.
CERCLA/ INDEMNITY SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Rohm and Haas Co. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 95-1664 Rohm and Haas lists issues to be presented for 3d Circuit review of ruling that sale agreement makes company liable 8/21/95 P. 10, statement P. 28.
CERCLA/ INDEMNITY SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Rohm and Haas Co. E.D. PA No. 92-5394Judge declares Rohm & Haas is liable under doctrine of de facto merger to SmithKline for contamination 4/10/95 P. 6, opinion P. 33.
CERCLA/ INDEMNITY SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Rohm and Haas Co. E.D. PA No. 92-5394 Judge says trial must determine Rohm * Haas pre-sale liability 6/20/94 P. 4, opinion P. 14.
CERCLA/ JUDICIAL REVIEW United States of America v. Princeton Gamma-Tech Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S. C.A. No. 93-5252 3rd Cir. allows judicial review of EPA cleanup program continuation when owner alleges harm to environment 8/8/94 P. 4, opinon P. 17.
CERCLA/ MONITORING Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Authority v. Tonolli Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92-76053rd Cir. says sister company's CERCLA liability as 'operator' depends on activity during waste disposal 10/4/93 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CERCLA/ NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 3rd Cir. to hear argument July 26 on whether EPA can require nonsettlor to join clean-up despite settlement PA 6/21/99 P.9.
CERCLA/ NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 3rd Cir. to hear argument July 26 on whether EPA can require nonsettlor to join clean-up despite settlement PA 6/21/99 P.9.
CERCLA/ OPERATOR The Reading Co. v. The City of Philadelphia et al. E.D. PA No. 91-2377 Judge sees question of Phila.]s ownership of reailcars with LCBs 3/22/93 P. 6, opinion P. 23.
CERCLA/ ORPHAN SHARES Gould Inc. v. A&M Battery and Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 91-1814 Gould seeks reconsideration of ruling that Marjol harm is divisible and Gould is responsible for orphan shares 12/18/95 P.
CERCLA/ PREEPMTION Manor Care Inc. v. Judith Yaskin et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 91-5128 3rd Circuit says CERCLA does not preempt use of state process to recover state's share of costs 12/16/91 P. 5, opinion P. 42.
CERCLA/ PRIVATE Anthony Mulbut Sr. et al. v. Hi-Score Plant Food Co. et. E.D. PA No. 91-2008 Judge dismisses CERCLA, RCRA claims for lack of evidence 1/25/93 P. 4.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Reno 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 94-2220 3rd Cir. hears argument on whether EPA can demand details of private finances of PRP 7/24/ 95 P. 8.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Reno 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 94-2220 3rd Cir. sets argument July 16 in appeal of whether EPA can demand 'every conceivable detail' of private finances 5/22/95 P. 13.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Reno 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 94-2220 PRP files 3rd Cir. statement of issues on whether EPA can demand 'every conceivable detail' of private finances 2/20/95 P. 10, statement P. 37.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Reno 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 94-2220 3rd Cir. remands claim that EPA's demand for financial data violated due process, to be considred with compliance 9/18/95 P. 5.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Reno 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 94-2220 Ehrlich tells 3rd Circuit that EPA violated right to privacy when it required him as PRP to reveal details of finances 3/7/95 P. 4, brief P. 15, 27.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Reno 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 94-2220 Ruling that EPA can hold individual as PRP although EHB finds no personal liability is appealed to 3rd Circuit 2/6/95 P. 5.
CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Rino E.D. PA No. 93-5829 Judge says EPA can find individual a PRP although EHB found no personal liability; search of finances allowed 11/21/94 P. 4.
CERCLA/ RESPONSE COST Schuylkill County Industrial Development Authority v. Tonolli Company of Canada Ltd. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 00-8400 3rd Cir. finds $250,000 settlement in Superfund case flowed from indemnity agreement and thus cannot be response cost 2/6/01 P. 8, opinion P. 13.
CERCLA/ RESPONSE COST Schuylkill County Industrial Development Authority v. Tonolli Company of Canada Ltd. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 00-8400 Tonolli Canada says indemnity payment to PRP by secured lender who took no part in cleanup is not response cost 10/23/00 P. 7, brief P. 43.
CERCLA/ RESPONSE COST Schuylkill County Industrial Development Authority v. Tonolli Company of Canada Ltd. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 00-8400 Schuylkill authority tells 3rd Cir. that $250,000 settlement represented CERCLA response costs, not indemnity 10/23/00 P. 5, brief P. 39.
CERCLA/ RESPONSE COST Schuylkill County Industrial Development Authority v. Tonolli Company of Canada Ltd. 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 00-8400 Tonolli Canada responds to 3rd Circuit request for material showing authority acknowledged it did not manage facility 1/8/01 P. 4. Letter P. 12, complaint P. 13.
CERCLA/ SECTION 107(a)/ HSCA Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries Inc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 Judge says jury trial not available for Bethlehem's CERCLA §107(a) claims, citing 3rd Cir. Hatco ruling 7/24/ 95 P. 7.
CERCLA/ SECTION 107(a)/ HSCA Bethlehem Iron Works Inc. et al. v. Lewis Industries Inc., et al. E.D. PA No. 94-0752 Judge says CERCLA §107(a) allows liable parties, not just 'innocent' parties, to assert cost recovery claims 7/10/95 P. 4, opinion P. 43.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3-CV-91-1714 Judge approves U.S. settlement with Gould, holds that nonsettlors are not liable for any share of U.S. liability 12/11/00 P. 5, order P. 14.
CERCLA/ SITE SUPERVISION United States of America v. BFG Electroplating and Manufacturing Co. Inc. et al., W.D. PA No. 88-1848 Defendants argues EPA failed to follow mandated 'cost-effective'policy at Punxutawney CERCLA site 10/20/89 P/ 7, defendants' motion and memorandum to compel P. 21; Gov't's trifucation motion threatens use of 'unlimited resources' to force settlement, defendants content 10/20/89 P. 9,brief P. 24; Judge allows CERCLA defendant to depose EPA on-scene coordinator regarding costs 12/1/89 P. 7;
CERCLA/ SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY United States of America v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Resources M.D. PA No. a:CV-89-1526 Judge declares that sovereign immunity does not bar DER from action against Navy Ships Center 12/16/91 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CERCLA/ STATE CLAIMS Coburn, Susan et al. v. Sequa Corp. et al., E.D. PA No. 88-0120 CERCLA, RCRA claims severed from state claims in water contamination case; settlement reached 8/18/89 P. 6, opinion P. 41;
CERCLA/ SUCCESSOR LIABILITY Atlantic Richfield Co. et al. v. Joseph M. Blosenski Jr. et al E.D. PA No. 92-2059 Judge allows appeal of ruling that applied substantial continuity test to successor liability under CERCLA 4/4/94 P. 6, brief P. 39.
CERCLA/ SUCCESSOR LIABILITY Atlantic Richfield Co. et al. v. Joseph M. Blosenski Jr. et al E.D. PA No. 92-2059 Judge extends deadline to June 1 for U.S. to complete Blosenski document production despite ICI's protest 5/23/94 P. 11, ordr P. 15.
CERCLA/ SUCCESSOR LIABILITY Atlantic Richfield v. Joseph BlosenskyT E.D. PA NO. 92-2059 Judge applies substantial continuity test to CERCLA successor liability allows veil piercing in Blosenski 3/21/94 P. 4, opinion P. 14. Judge finds no ties to predecessor company's contamination; sees no evidence that transactions we made for purpose of evading CERCLA liability 12/6/93 P. 5, opinion P. 32.
CERCLA/ SUCCESSOR LIABILITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 and related case Judge rejects U.S. and Witco's argument that Elf Atochem is corporate successor to Elko Chemical for cleanup of site 12/18/95 P. 4, opinion P. 35.
CERCLA/ TRACE AMOUNTS United States of America v. Louis Serafini et al. v. Lackawanna Refuse Removal Inc. M.D. PA No. 3:CV-86-1591 Judge finds no minimum quantity needed for liability under CERCLA, Topps remains in Scranton's action 2/17/92 P. 4, opinion P. 36.
CERCLA/ TRANSPORTER LIABILITY Tippins Inc. and International Mill Construction Inc. v. USX Corp. and Petroclean Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-3599 3rd Circuit says transporter must have considerable input in site selection for liability 9/19/94 P. 10, opinion P. 44.
CERCLA/ U.S. CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge denies reconsideration of decision holding lease does not indemnify U.S. from CERCLA contribution claim 2/6/95 P. 7.
CERCLA/ U.S. CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge refuses to allow Witco to argue that EPA's remedy for Myers Superfund site is 'capricious and arbitrary' 5/8/95 P. 7, opinion P. 14.
CERCLA/ U.S. CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge refuses to strike Elf Atochem's late expert designation but allows Witco, U.S. costs for motion 4/10/95 P. 11.
CERCLA/ U.S. CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge says lease does not indemnify United States from Elf Atochem's CERCLA contribution claim 11/7/94 P. 7, opinoin P. 40.
CERCLA/ U.S. CONTRIBUTION/ INDEMNITY Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge says standard for review of EPA response costs will be administrative record, despite studies for Witco 4/24/95 P. 6, opinion P. 20.
CERCLA/ U.S. LIABILITY/ CONTRIBUTION Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 Judge finds U.S. as owner liable for contribution to Elf Atochem for past and future CERCLA costs 10/10/94 P. 6, opinons P. 44.
CERCLA/ U.S. LIABILITY/ CONTRIBUTION Elf Atochem North America v. United States of America et al. E.D. PA No. 92-7458 United States argues caselaw supports argument that pre-CERCLA indemnification covers CERCLA liability 10/24/94 P. 5, brief P. 20.
CERCLA/ New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 NJ Turnpike Authority seeks 3rd Cir. appeal of rejection of alternative liability theory for cleanup at seven sites 10/19/98 P. 9, statement P. 52.
CERCLA/ New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 NJ Turnpike Authority seeks 3rd Cir. appeal of rejection of alternative liability theory for cleanup at seven sites 10/19/98 P. 9, statement P. 52.
CERCLA/ New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 NJ Turnpike Authority seeks 3rd Cir. appeal of rejection of alternative liability theory for cleanup at seven sites 10/19/98 P. 9, statement P. 52.
CERCLA/ New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 NJ Turnpike Authority seeks 3rd Cir. appeal of rejection of alternative liability theory for cleanup at seven sites 10/19/98 P. 9, statement P. 52.
CERCLA/ SECURED CREDITOR United States of America v. Marvin Pesses et al. W.D. PA No. 90-0654 Judge declares lender is not liable in first case in PA since Congress amended CERCLA secured creditors exemption 5/18/98 P. 4.
CERCLA/ SUCCESSOR LIABILITY United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge allows DEP to intervene in Keystone Landfill case under CERCLA and HSCA to protect its own interests 5/18/98 P. 5, motion P. 45, complaint P. 54.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 PPG Industries tells 3rd Cir. that N.J. Turnpike Authority cannot claim alternative liability because it is not innocent 6/7/99 P. 4, brief P. 38.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 AlliedSignal says NJ Turnpike Authority is not victim but at least 'partially responsible' for contamination at sites 6/7/99 P.6.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 3rd Cir. is asked to consider alternative liability for claims under CERCLA to ensure generator defendants bear costs 5/24/99 P. 9.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 PPG Industries tells 3rd Cir. that N.J. Turnpike Authority cannot claim alternative liability because it is not innocent 6/7/99 P. 4, brief P. 38.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 AlliedSignal says NJ Turnpike Authority is not victim but at least 'partially responsible' for contamination at sites 6/7/99 P.6.
CERCLA/ ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6309 3rd Cir. is asked to consider alternative liability for claims under CERCLA to ensure generator defendants bear costs 5/24/99 P. 9.
CERCLA/ ARRANGER Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3-CV-91-1714 Judge affirms that suppliers of junk batteries were 'arrangers'. 8/24/98 P.4, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA/ ASSET DISCOVERY United States of America v. David Ehrlich E.D. PA No. 95-661 Judge rules EPA's demand for personal financial data does not violate PRP's privacy, equal protection rights 4/20/98 P. 4, opinion P. 13, 25.
CERCLA/ CONSPIRACY United States of America v. America Recovery Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3975 3rd Cir. denies Fiore's petition for reargument based on his incarceration and ultimate loss of landfill business 8/28/00 P. 8.
CERCLA/ CONSPIRACY United States of America v. America Recovery Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3975 3rd Cir. rejects landfill owner's contention that he was denied due process in rejection of his counterclaim 8/18/00 P. 9, opinion P. 13. Fiore says panel ignored fact of his incarceration and ultimate loss of his landfill business, seeks rehearing 8/18/00 P. 9, petition P. 15.
CERCLA/ CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Marvin Pesses et al. W.D. PA No. 9 0654 Ending decade of litigation, 80 companies reach argeement with Bay Metal over portion of Metcoa site cleanup costs 9/15/00 P. 6.
CERCLA/ FAILURE TO DISCLOSE United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-3494 Landfill owner files notice of appeal from $8.5-million order after saying EPA failed to disclose relevant report 2/1/99 P.6.
CERCLA/ FAILURE TO DISCLOSE United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. E.D.PA No. 96-6395 PADEP v. Barkman E.D. PA No. 98-1180 Landfill owner asks court to vacate $8.5-million order, says EPA failed to disclose relevant report on landfill 1/19/99 P. 4, motion P. 22.
CERCLA/ FAILURE TO DISCLOSE United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-3494 Landfill owner files notice of appeal from $8.5-million order after saying EPA failed to disclose relevant report 2/1/99 P.6.
CERCLA/ FAILURE TO DISCLOSE United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. E.D.PA No. 96-6395 PADEP v. Barkman E.D. PA No. 98-1180 Landfill owner asks court to vacate $8.5-million order, says EPA failed to disclose relevant report on landfill 1/19/99 P. 4, motion P. 22.
CERCLA/ FAILURE TO DISCLOSE United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. E.D.PA No. 96-6395 PADEP v. Barkman E.D. PA No. 98-1180 Judge says landfill report, disclosed to defendant after ruling, is not evidence that EPA's action was arbitrary 2/15/99 P.5, opinion P. 12.
CERCLA/ FAILURE TO DISCLOSE United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. E.D.PA No. 96-6395 PADEP v. Barkman E.D. PA No. 98-1180 Judge says landfill report, disclosed to defendant after ruling, is not evidence that EPA's action was arbitrary 2/15/99 P.5, opinion P. 12.
CERCLA/ FIFTH AMENDMENT United States of America v. David Ehrlich E.D. PA No. 95-661 Judge refuses to find Ehrlich waived Fifth Amendment rights for failure to assert defense in Strasburg Landfill case 6/1/98 P. 5, opinion P. 21.
CERCLA/ FOIA Viacom International Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency E.D. PA No. 95-2243 Judge vacates order for EPA to disclose data to PRP 8/5/96 P.7, order P. 41
CERCLA/ FOIA Viacom International Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency E.D. PA No. 95-2243 Judge denies Viacom attorneys' fees and costs despite finding that EPA had to disclose addresses near site 9/16/96 P.8, opinion P. 28.
CERCLA/ FOURTH PARTY United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge conditions entry of consent decree for certain fourth-party defendants on fee payment 9/7/99 P. 11, motion P. 41.
CERCLA/ FOURTH PARTY United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Judge conditions entry of consent decree for certain fourth-party defendants on fee payment 9/7/99 P. 11, motion P. 41.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.I.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency M.D. PA No. e:CV-98-0398 Judge says CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims, bars private parties' effort to halt incinerator used in site cleanup 5/4/98 P. 4, opinon. P. 13, brief P. 18.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency M.D. PA No. e:CV-98-0398 Citizens are appealing ruling that CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims, bars private parties' suit to halt incinerator 10/5/98 P. 7
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 3rd Cir. says only state court can decide if CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims and bars private suit. 7/20/99 P. 5, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 Parties in 3rd Cir. appeal argue impact of ruling in Steel on nuisance claim in environmental suit 3/1/99 P. 7, briefs 35, 38.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 EPA tells 3rd Cir. that CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims and bars private parties' suit over remedial action 2/1/99 P. 4, brief P. 11.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 Citizens' group says EPA misreads Clinton County as opposing preservation of state nuisance claims 2/1/99 P.5, brief P. 28.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 OHM tells 3rd Cir. that CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims and bars private parties' suit over remedial action 11/23/98 P. 4, brief P. 12.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency M.D. PA No. e:CV-98-0398 Citizens are appealing ruling that CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims, bars private parties' suit to halt incinerator 10/5/98 P. 7
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 3rd Cir. says only state court can decide if CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims and bars private suit. 7/20/99 P. 5, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 Parties in 3rd Cir. appeal argue impact of ruling in Steel on nuisance claim in environmental suit 3/1/99 P. 7, briefs 35, 38.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 EPA tells 3rd Cir. that CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims and bars private parties' suit over remedial action 2/1/99 P. 4, brief P. 11.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 Citizens' group says EPA misreads Clinton County as opposing preservation of state nuisance claims 2/1/99 P.5, brief P. 28.
CERCLA/ JURISDICTION Arrest the Incinerator Remediation (A.l.R.) Inc. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-7341 OHM tells 3rd Cir. that CERCLA preempts state nuisance claims and bars private parties' suit over remedial action 11/23/98 P. 4, brief P. 12.
CERCLA/ NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 U.S. asks 3rd Circuit to allow EPA to require nonsettling Occidental Chemical to join clean-up despite settlement 5/24/99 P.4
CERCLA/ NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3r Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 U.S. asks 3rd Circuit to allow EPA to require nonsettling Occidental Chemical to join clean-up despite settlement 5/24/99 P.4
CERCLA/ NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 U.S. asks 3rd Circuit to allow EPA to require nonsettling OccidentalChemical to join clean-up despite settlement 7/7/99 P. 9, brief P. 15.
CERCLA/ NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 U.S. asks 3rd Circuit to allow EPA to require nonsettling OccidentalChemical to join clean-up despite settlement 7/7/99 P. 9, brief P. 15.
CERCLA/ RETROACTIVITY Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3-CV-91-1714 Judge says CERCLA applies retroactively to disposal that occurred at Marjol site prior to law's Dec. 1980 enactment 8/5/96 P. 4, opinion P. 26.
CERCLA/ RETROACTIVITY Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3-CV-91-1714 Judge says seller's knowledge that batteries were taken to facility by another party makes seller liable 8/19/96 P.6, opinion P. 42.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 Occidental says §113 prohibits actions against nonsettlor to enforce order where EPA has obtained 'complete relief' 5/24/99 P.5, brief P. 11..
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 U.S. will appeal ruling that EPA cannot require nonsettlor to pay for cleanup because settlement provided 'relief' 3/15/99 P.9.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 Occidental says §113 prohibits actions against nonsettlor to enforce order where EPA has obtained 'complete relief' 5/24/99 P.5, brief P. 11..
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 U.S. will appeal ruling that EPA cannot require nonsettlor to pay for cleanup because settlement provided 'relief' 3/15/99 P.9.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 EPA and DEP say Waste Management is using pilot study of 'alternative' to delay Keystone Landfill site settlement 11/10/98 P. 4, reply P. 15.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Replying to Waste Management, settling local small businesses say EPA has ably estimated landfill site costs 11/10/98 P. 5, brief P. 21.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 EPA and DEP say Waste Management is using pilot study of 'alternative' to delay Keystone Landfill site settlement 11/10/98 P. 4, reply P. 15.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Replying to Waste Management, settling local small businesses say EPA has ably estimated landfill site costs 11/10/98 P. 5, brief P. 21.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENTS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. M.D. PA No. 4:CV-98-0686 Judge affirms decision that U.S. is barred from requiring nonsettlor to pay for cleanup because of settlement 'relief' 1/4/99 P.9, opinion P. 15.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENTS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. M.D. PA No. 4:CV-98-0686 Judge says U.S. is barred from requiring nonsettlor to pay for cleanup because settlement provided 'complete relief' 11/23/98 P.5, opinion P. 29.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENTS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. M.D. PA No. 4:CV-98-0686 Judge affirms decision that U.S. is barred from requiring nonsettlor to pay for cleanup because of settlement 'relief' 1/4/99 P.9, opinion P. 15.
CERCLA/ SETTLEMENTS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. M.D. PA No. 4:CV-98-0686 Judge says U.S. is barred from requiring nonsettlor to pay for cleanup because settlement provided 'complete relief' 11/23/98 P.5, opinion P. 29.
CERCLA/ SUCCESSOR LIABILITY United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1482 Judge says Waste Management cannot use exclusion in sales agreement to avoid liability for landfill cleanup 9/3/96 P. 4, opinion P. 16
CERCLA/ THIRD PARTY SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Keystone Landfill third party defendants insist settlement with them is fair, reasonable and faithful to CERCLA policy 10/5/98 P.5.
CERCLA/ THIRD PARTY SETTLEMENT United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Keystone Landfill third party defendants insist settlement with them is fair, reasonable and faithful to CERCLA policy 10/5/98 P.5.
CERCLA/ TREBLE DAMAGES Frederick V. Dexter Jr. et al. v. Cosan Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5153, 97-5238 Cosan tells 3rd Cir. that court erred in imposing treble damages for not joining in consent order 8/18/97 P.7.
CERCLA/ARRANGER Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3:cv-91-171 Judge refuses to expedite decision on new CERCLA exemption as to batteries sent to Marjol-Gould facility 5/10/00 P.10.
CERCLA/ARRANGER Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA. 3:cv-91-1714 Gould insists defendants failed to meet elements required for new CERCLA exemption for sending material to facility contribution 4/26/00 P.5, brief P. 13.
CERCLA/ARRANGER Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3~V-91-1714 Four Marjol defendants say CERCLA change exempts sellers of recyclable batteries from liability; seek relief 2/10/00 P. 7, motion and brief P. 30-37
CERCLA/ARRANGER Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. M.D. PA No. 3-CV-91-1714 3rd Cir. will hear recycling defendants' argument that SREA exempts parties that supply material with waste component 6/19/00 P. 7, brief p. 15.
CERCLA/ASBESTOS United States of America v. Nicolet Inc., E.D. PA No. 86-3060 Gov't cites further basis for alleging T&N's liability as mortgagee of asbestos-containing property 1/6/89 P. 22; Judges orders deposition of former T&N chairman in England under FRCO in CERCLA suit 1/20/89 P. 7, order P. 60; Stipulation and protective order between U.S. and T&N over minutes, Bateman deposition is filed 2/17/89 P.13; Chapter 11 plan allows no distribution for asbestos building claims 4/7/89 P.17; U.S. asks judge to declare asbestos waste hazardous substance under CERCLA 5/5/89 P.9;T&N trial on June 5 will focus on level of activity required for mortgagee's CERCLA asbestos liability 6/2/89 P.4, opinion P. 21; Judge grants U.S. motion to compel admissions by T&N in asbestos CERCLA site case 6/2/89 P.7; Judge rules asbestos is hazardous substance under CERCLA 'irrespective of volume or concentration' 6/16/89 P.8, opinion P. 35; Settlement reached on liability of mortgagee, controlling strockholder 7/21/89 P. 12; T&N opposes CERCLA consent decree 8/4/89 P. 8, consent decree P. 46, T&N's opposition P. 56; T&N seeks indemnity from Pennsylvania, Army and Navy for costs incurred at CERCLA asbestos site 8/4/89 P. 9, complaint P. 37; Nicolet's $900,000 consent decree approved, but held in suspense file until T&N claims is settled 9/1/89 P. 8, opinion P. 38;
CERCLA/ATTORNEYS' FEES Fallowfield Development Corp. and E.J. Callaghan & Co. Inc. v. Leonard M. Strunk and Better R. Strunk E.D. PA No. 89-8644 and related case.Judge Hutton refuses to accept 8th Circuit ruling on private CERCLA recovery of attorneys' fees 6/24/91 P. 5;
CERCLA/ATTORNEY'S FEES Fallowfield v. Strunk 3RD CIR. USCA No . 94-2019 Judge says law firm is already entitled to fees, bars intervention at hearing Attorneys' Fees 3/17/97 P. 12.
CERCLA/BANKRUPTCY CLAIMS In Re: Allegheny International Inc. W.D. PA No. 90-1081 Judge rules that private CERCLA response costs may be considered in bankruptcy as claim against debtor 7/8/91 P. 4, opinion P. 18;
CERCLA/CHAPTER 11 AL Tech v. AllegheEny International Credit Corp. 3rd Cir USCA No. 95-3415 3rd Cir. says environmental liabilities are not discounted in purchase 2/17/97 P.6, opinion P. 38.
CERCLA/De Facto Merger Aluminum Aluminium Co. of America v. Beazer East 3rd Cir. USCA NO. 96-3420 Beazer East alleges error in applying 'de facto merger' doctrine 5/20/97 P.9.
CERCLA/EXEMPTION Gould Inc. v.A & M Battery & Tire Service et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3294 Recycler defendants tell 3rd Cir. that Gould cannot claim cleanup activity is a judicial action initated by U.S. 7/6/00 P. 4, brief P. 16.
CERCLA/Hazardous Substances Alcan v. USA ES Supreme Ct No. 96-1494 Supreme Court denies certiorari in Section 107(a) causation ruling 7/21/97 P. 6, brief P. 30.
CERCLA/HSCA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Consolidated Rail Corp. Blair County Common Pleas Court Judge orders Conrail to pay $3 million for waste disposal at two sites; Conrail agrees to $1.1-million DEP settlement 7/24/00 P. 6, agreement P. 31.
CERCLA/HSCA Consolidated Rail Corp. v. American Premier Underwriters Inc. E.D. PA No. 98-5663 Judge denies former site owners' attempt for now to modify cleanup pact because Conrail told DEP about other drums 7/24/00 P.7, brief, 23, opinion P. 28.
CERCLA/HSCA Consolidated Rail Corp. v. American Premier Underwriters Inc. E.D. PA No. 98-5663 Judge allows Conrail claim against previous owner but denies claims for post conveyance pollution liability . 7/6/00 P.6.
CERCLA/HSCA United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. E.D.PA No. 96-6395 PADEP v. Barkman E.D. PA No. 98-1180 Landfill owners are liable for $7.9-million in CERCLA costs to EPA and $587,237 to DEP, judge determines 1/4/99 P. 4, opinion P. 57.
CERCLA/HSCA United States of America v. Ernest Barkman et al. E.D.PA No. 96-6395 PADEP v. Barkman E.D. PA No. 98-1180 Landfill owners are liable for $7.9-million in CERCLA costs to EPA and $587,237 to DEP, judge determines 1/4/99 P. 4, opinion P. 57.
CERCLA/Indemnity Keystone v. Pollock ED PA 92-6000 Judge finds hazards are within scope of lease indemnity clause 7/21/97 P. 4, opinion P. 16.
CERCLA/MEDICAL MONITORING Coburn, Susan et al. v. Sun Chemical Corp. et al., USCA 3rd Cir No. 88-8053 Two sides to CERCLA medical monitoring in PA; 3rd Cir. rejects certified question in Dublin case 2/3/89 P.5, petition P. 34, defendant's answer P. 41, lower court opinion P. 48;
CERCLA/NCP City of Phila. v. Stepan Chemical Co. et al. , E.D. PA No. 81-0851 Dispute exists over whether scum pit waste falls under CERCLA petroleum exclusion, judge says 1/6/89 P. 14; Phila. must prove $12-million Enterprise cleanup was consistent with NCP to recover cost under CERCLA 5/5/89 P.7, memorandum P. 23; Trust is not a successor-in-interest to defendant in Phila's CERCLA lawsuit over Enterprise landfill 6/2/89 P.12;
CERCLA/NON-SETTLORS United States of America v. Occidental Chemical Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3084 3rd Cir. says EPA is not barred from requiring other parties to conduct cleanup despite a full settlement 1/10/00 P. 5, opinion P. 18.
CERCLA/PRPs New Castle v. Halliburton 3rd Cir. USCA No. 96-7443 3rd Cir denies rehearing on CERCLA bar to recovery from other PRPs 6/9/97 P.6, petition P. 37.
CERCLA/RCRA Lutz, Carl et al. v. Chromatex Inc. , M.D. PA No. 88-1764 Judge finds CERCLA claim cannot be brought for a wholly past violation, but allows plaintiffs to amend complaint 7/7/89 P. 6; opinion P.22.amended complaint with private HSCA claim allowed 11/3/89 P.4, opinion P. 21, plaintiffs' reply P. 33;Plaintiffs' argue HSCA provides express private cause of action for response costs 11/3/89, P.6, reply P. 33;
CERCLA/REVIEW United States of America v. American Color and Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-7589 3rd Cir. allows judicial review of EPA cleanup plan in new case, cites precedent in Princeton Gamma-Tech 8/22/94 P. 4, opinion P. 17.
CERCLA/REVIEW United States of America v. American Color and Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-7589 U.S. seeks rehearing of rulings allowing preliminary injunctions blocking EPA cleanup programs 1-/24/94 P. 6, petition P. 32; opposition P. 41.
CERCLA/REVIEW United States of America v. Princeton Gamma-Tech Inc. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-5252 Third Cir. denies United States's rehearing petitions in decisions allowing review of ongoing EPA cleanups 11/7/94 P. 12.
CERCLA/SCRAP METAL Gould Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Service et al.
CERCLA/Section 107 New Castle v. Hallburton 3rd Cir. USCA NO. 96-7443 3rd Cir. says PRP may not seek Section 107 cost recovery from PRPs 5/20/97 P.6, opinion P. 47.
CERCLA/SPILL ACT SETTLEMENT Global Landfill Agreement Group v. 280 Development Corp. et al. D NJ No. 96-5338 (NHP) Judge approves stipulation dismissing claims between Global Landfill agreement group and 29 defendants 12/27/00 P.11.
CERCLA/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Guidice, Philip and Brenda et al. v. BFG Electroplating and Manufacturing Co. WD PA No. 89-2093 CERCLA 'discovery' statute of limitations preempts state statute of limitations, judge says 4/8/91 P. 9;
CERCLA/STAY United States of America v. Keystone Sanitation Company Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 93-1483 Esab seeks relief from stay in order to proceed to jury trial on indemnification against Keystone Sanitation Landfill 3/21/00 P.9, motion P. 31.
CERCLA/Treble Damages Dexter v. Cosan D NJ No. 91-5436 Parties tel1 3rd Cir. that severance of insurance claims allows appeal 5/20/97 P.13.
CERCLA/U.S. LIABILITY FMC Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce et al. ED PA No. 90-1761 Judge says U.S.'s unknown role at VA site bars summary judgment on its CERCLA 'operator' status 4/22/91 P. 8;
CERCLA/Waste Stream U.S. A v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge says liability does not depend on copper leaching. Finds no language in definition of 'release' to warrant dismissal 12/6/93 P.6, order P. 38.
CHANGE ORDERS Roy F. Weston Services Inc. v. Halliburton NUS Environmental Corp. E.D. PA No. 91-1133 Judge finds contract wording on removal of solids from tanks at Superfund site is not ambiguous 2/8/93 P. 9.
CHAPTER 11 CLAIM United States of America v. Berks Associates Inc. E.D. PA No. 91-4868 Consent decree gives U.S. allowed claim of $455,759 in Farley Inc. bankruptcy for Douglassville cleanup 2/21/94 P. 10, order P. 28.
CHAPTER 11 In Re: Amatex Corp., E.D. PA No. 82-0522OS June 15, 1989 deadline for claims against Amatex or be forever barred from filing a claim 6/2/89 P.19;
CHAPTER 11 In Re: Torwico Elecgronics Inc. Torwico Electronics Inc. v. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-5021 3rd Cir. declares debtor is liable for cleanup because order is exercise of NJ police power, not Chap. 11 claim 11/8/94 P. 6, opinion P. 23.
CHOICE OF LAW Armotek Industries Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. NO. 90-5969 AND 90-6001 3rd Cir. says PA law controls coverage involving NJ company's costs for cleaning up CT site 1/6/92 P. 4, Opinion P. 16.
CHOICE OF LAW Armotek Industries Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau D NJ No. 88-3220 New Jersey judge says PA law controls insurance dispute involving NJ company 12/1/89 P. 10;,dge refuses to allow immediate appeal of ruling that PA law, rather than NJ law applies in CT case 2/2/90 P. 9;
CHOICE OF LAW Johnson Matthey Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co. et al. Appellate Div. of NJ. Superior Court No. A-5546-89T1 F NJ panel says NJ law governs 'sudden and accidental' language for NJ sites, even for out-of-state policies 8/5/91 P. 8, opinion P. 49;
CHOICE OF LAW NL Industries v. Commercial Union 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5030 NL Industries v. Commercial Insurers support stay of appeal involving pollution exclusion 2/17/98 P.11,
CHOICE OF LAW NL Industries v. Commercial 3rd Cir. USCA No. 97-5030 NL Industries asks 3rd Cir. to apply NJ pollution exclusion 12/8/97 P.11.
CHOICE OF LAW NL Industries v. Commercial Union 3rd Cir. 97-5030 3rd Cir. to hear argument on applying NJ pollution exclusion 3/9/98 P.9.
CHOICE OF LAW/ INSURANCE NL Industries v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5030 NL Industries says 3rd Cir. ruling that applied NY law to environmental claims is based on factual error 10/5/98 P. 11.
CHOICE OF LAW/ INSURANCE NL Industries v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5030 NL Industries says 3rd Cir. ruling that applied NY law to environmental claims is based on factual error 10/5/98 P. 11.
CHOICE OF LAW/ INSURANCE NL Industries v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5030 3rd Cir. denies NL Industries' motion for reconsideration based on factual error that applied NY law to claims 11/10/98 P. 12, order P. 57.
CHOICE OF LAW/ INSURANCE NL Industries v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5030 3rd Cir. denies NL Industries' motion for reconsideration based on factual error that applied NY law to claims 11/10/98 P. 12, order P. 57.
CHOICE OF LAW/ POLLUTION EXCLUSION NL Industries v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-5030 With approval of parties, Third Circuit stays appeals involving choice of law until NJ Supreme Court ruling 5/4/98 P.10.
CITIZEN SUIT Clinton County v. EPA US Supreme Ct 97-541 Supreme Court declines to review CERCLA citizens' suit ruling 1/19/98 P. 6.
CITIZEN SUIT Raymond Proffitt Foundation et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. E.D. PA No. 99-4038 Judge allows citizen groups claims that Corps of Engineers failed to incorporate environmental protection in its mission 9/15/00 P. 12.
CITIZEN SUITS Clinton County Commissioners and Arrest the Incinerator Remediation Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 96-7683 3rd Circuit orders en banc hearing on whether CERCLA allows citizen suit prior to completion of remedial action 4/7/97 P.7, brief P. 22.
CITIZEN SUITS Clinton County Commissioners and Arrest the Incinerator Remediation Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 96-7683 Overruling Princeton Gamma-Tech, 3rd Circuit in banc holds that citizens' suit must await EPA's remedial action 7/7/97 P. 4, opinion P. 15.
CITIZENS' SUIT American Lung Association of New Jersey et al. v. Thomas H. Kean et al; EPA et al, intervenors, USCA 3rd Cir No. 87-5904 3rd Cir. allows citizens to sue New Jersey over failure to implement ozone regulations 4/7/89 P.17
CITIZENS SUIT Environmental Compliance Oversight Corp. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. E.D. PA No. 94-1807 Judge rejects citizen group's claims against SmithKline that arose after DER did not prosecute alleged violations 12/19/94 P. 4, opinion P. 23.
CITIZENS SUIT West Chester Fish, Game & Wildlife Assn. et al. Oaklands Business Parks Inc. et al., E.D. PA No. 89-4409Birst PA wetlands citizens' suit under Clean Water Act filed by Chester County wildlife association 6/16/89 P.7; Business park lists defenses in first PA wetlands suit under Clean Water Act by wildlife association 9/1/89 P. 10; Suit settles for $1.9 million in costs and lost profits by business park 3/16/90 P.4, consent decree P. 17;
CIVIL PENALTY PADER v. Landis EHB No. 91-575-CP-MR EHB says notations on appeal notice are insufficient answer to DER complaint seeking $10,000 in penalties 9/21/92 P. 9.
CIVIL PENALTY Wabo Coal Co. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources , EHB No. 85-416-W Board says proposed civil penalty assessment for mining violation is not appealable action 7/7/89 P. 13;
CIVIL PENALTY/ MONITORING REPORT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Monessen Inc. EHB No. 90-540-CP-E EHB rejects Monessen~s challenge, cites requirement to monitor and attest to accuracy of discharge reports 4/6/92 P. 12.
CIVIL RIGHTS South Camden Citizens in Action et al. v. NJ Department of Environmental Protection. et al. D NJ Camden Vicinage No. 01cv702(smo) Opposing injunction, St. Lawrence Cement insists no evidence exists NJ DEP acted with discriminatory intent 3/20/01 P. 10.
CIVIL RIGHTS South Camden Citizens in Action et al. v. NJ Department of Environmental Protection. et al. D NJ Camden Vicinage No. 01cv702(smo) Judge finds NJDEP violated civil rights of residents in approving air permits for cement facility in Camden 4/23/01 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CLAIMS In Re: Amatex Corp., E.D. PA No. 82-0522OS June 15, 1989 deadline for claims against Amatex or be forever barred from filing a claim 6/2/89 P.19;
CLASS ACTION / OPT OUT Prince George Center Inc. and MBL Life Assurance Corp. etc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. U.S. Supreme Court No. 98-1695 U.S. Supreme Court declines to review PA court ruling on adequacy of asbestos-in-buildings notice in class action
CLASS ACTION In Re Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 New judge in nationwide school class action approves 11 orders placing stayed proceedings back on schedule 11/9/92 P. 14.
CLASS ACTION In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Defining nationwide school class, PA judges rules VA law bars VA claims for buildings built prior to 1978 2/3/89 P.21; U.S. Gypsum contends school class jurisdiction is unsupported, claims under $10,000 are included 3/17/89 P.14; Class plaintiffs cannot simply direct defendants to mass of business records 4/21/89 P.14; All defendants except National Gypsum ask judge to decertify 5/5/89 P. 14; Defendants cite four reasons why settlement of school class action is unlikely 5/5/89 P.17; Judge says failure to establish $10,000 claim for each school member makes nationwide class defective 5/19/89 P. 15, opinion P. 54;School class plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of $1-million settlement with Lac d'Amiante du Quebec 6/2/89 P.20; School class plaintiffs amend complaints to meet jurisdiction objections over $10,000 minimum 6/16/89 P.9; Kaiser Gypsum, others continue to challenge $10,000 jurisdictional minimum for all school class members 7/7/89 P. 16; Fibreboard also says lack of $10,000 jurisdictional minimum requires dismissal 7/21/89 P. 16; Flintkote lists affirmatives defenses 7/21/89 P. 18; Plaintiffs seek clarification on type of product indentification required by Aug. 1 8/4/89 P. 18; Defendants ask that 33 experts be barred 9/15/89 P. 15;Kaiser says classwide trial of common issues will leave almost all liability issues unresolved 9/15/89 P. 16; plaintiffs argues against dismissal for lack of jurisdiction 10/20/89 P. 16; defendants want sanctions, say 'evidence' fails to address in-place asbestos claims 10/20/89 P. 17; Plaintiffs argued against sanctions that would bar evidence beyond interrogatory responses 11/17/89 P. 14; Judge refuses to dismiss nationwide class action for lack of jurisdiction; rejects 13 dismissal motions 12/1/89 P. 11;U.S. Gypsum, Kaiser seek to appeal ruling that delays $10,000 jurisdiction limit decision for each class member 12/15/89 P. 16; Judge allows notice of $1-million settlement with LAQ 12/15/89 P. 18; Parties invited to file praecipe 12/15/89 P. 19;
CLASS ACTION Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec Ltd. et al. U.S. Supreme Court NO. 90-1367 Kaiser asks U.S. Supreme Court to review rulings on subject matter jurisdiction in PA school class action 3/18/91 P. 9;
CLASS ACTION Prince George Center Inc. et al. v. United States Gypsum Co. et al. Phila. Common Pleas Court May Term 1986 Phila. judge certifies national class of all private owners of buildings with asbestos leased to U.S. 6/15/92 P. 8.
CLASS ACTION Prince George Center Inc. et al. v. United States Gypsum Co. et al. Phila. Common Pleas Court May Term 1986 No. 5388 Separate settlement conferences held for 7 non-settlors in asbestos class action of owners of federal buildings 7/19/93 P. 12.
CLASS ACTION Prince George Center Inc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. Phila. Common Pleas Court May Term 1986 No. 5388 Owens-Illinois says class of federally leased building does not meet PA, U.S. Constitutions 7/22/91 P. 14;
CLASS ACTION Prince George v. USG PASupreme Court No. 637 ED Allocatur 1997 Prudential asks PA Supreme Court to review class action ruling 1/19/98 P.12.
CLASS ACTION Prince George v. USG PASupreme Court No. 637 ED Allocatur 1997 Prudential asks PA Supreme Court to review class action ruling 1/19/98 P.12.
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Judge orders notices to school class members disclosing class counsel have applied for 25 percent attorneys' fees 8/7/95 P. 11.
CLASS ACTION Wagner, Ursula Stiglich et al v. Anzon Inc. and N.L. Industries Inc. Phila. Common Pleas Court June Term 1987 No. 4220 Plaintiffs proposed class certification agaisnt Anzon, NL INdustries fro lead exposure in area of 50,000 5/21/90 P. 8, proposed findings P. 58;
CLASS ACTION Wagner, Ursula Stiglich et al. v. Anzon Inc. and NL Industries Inc. Phila. Cm Pls Ct. June Term 1987 No. 4420 Judge certified subsclass of property owners, residents against Anzon, NL Industries over lead 8/17/90 P. 10, order and memorandum P. 37;
CLASS ACTION/ CONSPIRACY Asten Group Inc. v. Hon. James McGirr Kelly v. Barnwell School District 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92-1014 Judge Kelly tells 3rd Cir. that he has jurisdiction over conspiracy trial in nationwide class action 3/9/92 P. 12.
CLASS ACTION/ DISCLOSURE Joanne Strawn et al. v. John B. Canuso Sr. et al. etc. Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court No. A-4764-91T3 NJ appeals court says builder and broker must tell potential buyers that homes are near closed landfill 3/7/94 P. 12.
CLASS ACTION/ EXCLUSION In Re: Asbestos School Litigation 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-1820 3rd Cir. says Girard College can pursue state court action for asbestos cost recovery despite class action 7/24/ 95 P. 12.
CLASS ACTION/ FEDERAL BUILDINGS Prince George Center Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co. et al. PA Superior Court No. 1883 Phila. 1995 and two consolidated appeals. USG tells PA panel that lower court can review in camera arguments why documents should be submitted under seal 8/21/95 P. 13.
CLASS ACTION/ FEDERAL BUILDINGS Prince George Center Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co. et al. PA Superior Court No. 78 MDE 95 USG tells appeals court that without protective order documents in class action could be disclosed in other cases 6/5/95 P. 13.
CLASS ACTION/ FEDERAL BUILDINGS Prince George Center Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co. May Term 1986 No. 5388 Phila. judge gives final approval to $4.5-million class settlement of owners of federally leased buildings 5/22/95 P. 15.
CLASS ACTION/ FEDERAL BUILDINGS Prince George Center Inc. v. W.R. Grace & Co. Phila. County Court of Common Pleas May Term 1986 No. 5388 Judge certifies $4.5 million class action settlement of private owners of federally leased buildings 3/20/95 P. 13.
CLASS ACTION/ FEES In Re: Kreamer Municipal Well Litigation Snyder County C.P. Ct., 17th Judicial Dist. No. 336-1985 Personal injuyr, property damage calsses certified in Kreamer, counsel assumes responsibility for costs 3/16/90 P. 6, opinion P. 43;
CLASS ACTION/ INTERROGATORIES In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Plaintiff say data in interrogatories that defendants want absent class members to answer is available 3/7/94 P. 13
CLASS ACTION/ LEASED FEDERAL BUILDINGS Prince George Center Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co. et al. Phila. Common Pleas Court May Term 1986 No. 5388 Plaintiff puts potential class of federally leased buildings with asbestos at 2,663 in Phila. court 5/20/91 P. 17;
CLASS ACTION/ STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 GA's statute of limitation sbars nationwide school asbestos class action against 31 companies 6/15/90 P. 13;
CLASS ACTION/ TRIAL PLAN In Re School Asbestos Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Grace's submit school class trial plan that questions ability of single trial to apply laws of 50+ jurisdictions 2/7/94 P. 12.
CLASS ACTION/ TRIAL PLAN In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0269 First phase of bifurcated natinal class action trial to inlcude hazard level of kinds of friable asbestos 6/1/90 P. 8, order P. 46; Judge issues class action expert witness order, defendants cite builidng-specific discovery problems 8/3/90 P. 14; School class says entry into conspiracy at any time makes a company liable for all conspiracy damages 8/3/90 P. 15;
CLASS ACTION/ FEDERAL BUILDINGS Prince George Center Inc. and MBL Life Assurance Corp. etc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. Phila. County Court of Common Pleas May Term 1986 No. 5388 Phila. judge grants final approval to $7.7-million settlements in class action over asbestos in federally leased buildings 9/16/96 P.13.
CLASS ACTION/ OPT OUT Prince George Center Inc. and MBL Life Assurance Corp. etc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. PA Supreme Court No. 637 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1997 PA Supreme Court rejects Prudential's petition to appeal refusal to allow it to opt out of federal. tenant class action 1/4/99 P. 13.
CLASS ACTION/ OPT OUT Prince George Center Inc. and MBL Life Assurance Corp. etc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. PA Supreme Court No. 637 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1997 PA Supreme Court rejects Prudential's petition to appeal refusal to allow it to opt out of federal. tenant class action 1/4/99 P. 13.
CLASS ACTION/ OPT OUT Prince George Center Inc. and MBL Life Assurance Corp. etc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co. et al. PA Superior Court No. 531 Phila. 1997 Prince George says settlements in class of federal tenants will be 'obliterated' after appeal period if Prudential wins 7/7/97 P.14.
CLASS CERTIFICATION In Re: Kreamer Municipal Well Litigation, 17th Judicial District, Snyder County Branch, Master File No. 336-1985 Judge allows putative class members' depositions on certificaiotn of property, injury classes P. 7, order P. 27, defendant's answer P. 29, brief P. 32;
CLASS DEFINITION In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA 83-0268 Judge amends nationwide school class definition, excludes schools that do not have friable asbestos 1/4/91 P. 15;
CLEAN AIR ACT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 90-3171 3rd Circuit finds EPA rejection of PA's plan to reduce ozone in Phila. area was not arbitrary or capricious 5/20/91 P.9;
CLEAN AIR ACT Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air et al. v. Arthur A. Davis et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 3rd Cir. orders district court to determine when more measures are required for air quality in 5/20/91 P.10;
CLEAN AIR ACT MALODORS Chester Residents Concerned For Quality Living et al. v. Delcora Sewage Treatment Plant E.D. PA No. 94-5639 Judge orders continuation of discussions over procedure for residents to participate in negotiation
CLEAN AIR ACT MALODORS Chester Residents Concerned For Quality Living et al. v. Delcora Sewage Treatment Plant E.D. PA No. 94-5639 Judge says PA malodor rule is not so vague as to beuncontitutional. 11/21/94 P. 10, opinion P. 42.
CLEAN AIR ACT Star Enterprise and Texaco Inc. v. United States Environmental Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6321 Texaco says heightened judicial deference sought by EPA in applying Clean Air Act would sow confusion 2/19/01 P. 8, response P. 24.
CLEAN AIR ACT Star Enterprise and Texaco Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6321 3rd Cir. hears authority argue that $250,000 settlement represented CERCLA response costs, not indemnity 12/27/00 P. 8, opinion P. 15.
CLEAN AIR ACT United States of America v. Anthony Dell'Aquilla, Harry Grant, Sandalwood Construction Corp. Third CIRCUIT U.S.C.A. No. 96-5761 3rd Cir. says party with control over emissions not just owner can be strictly liable under Clean Air Act 8/24/98 P.12.
CLEAN AIR ACT Star Enterprise and Texaco Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6321 3rd Cir. orders EPA, Texaco to address whether Clean Air Act rules apply to combustion turbines being built at refinery 9/20/99 P.13, response P. 43.
CLEAN AIR ACT Star Enterprise and Texaco Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-6321 3rd Cir. orders EPA, Texaco to address whether Clean Air Act rules apply to combustion turbines being built at refinery 9/20/99 P.13, response P. 43.
CLEAN AIR ACT/ PENALTIES U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Allegheny County v. Shenago Inc. W.D. PA Shenango agrees to $2.1-million settlement with EPA and Allegheny County for emissions from coke plant 3/8/00 P.11.
CLEAN AIR ACT/ PENALTY United States of America v. Fred Powell E.D. PA No. 94-2676 Judge imposes $106,025.04 in penalty and interest for failure to pay fine for violation of Clean Air Act NJPDES 10/10/94 P. 13.
CLEAN AIR Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air et al. v Arthur A. Davis et al. E.D. PA No. 89-2592 Judge dismisses counts in citizens group's lawsuit alleging PA failed to meet ozone emissino deadline 3/16/90 P. 8;
CLEAN AIR Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air et al. v. Arthur A. Davis et al. E.D. PA No. 89-2592 Judge transfers citizens' suit over ozone emissino deadline agaisnt state officials to Third Circuit 5/21/90 P. 9;
CLEAN AIR DER fines Montgomery County foundry $211,448 for clean air, water violations 6/16/89 P.14;
CLEAN AIR United States of America and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. E.D. PA No. 87-5438 Bethlehem Steel agrees to spend $32 million to meet air standards and to pay $6.7 million in penalties 3/23/92 P. 6, partial consent decree P. 14.
CLEAN AIR Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air v. Carol Browner 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-3377 Citizens' group says EPA cannot designate attainment area 8/18/97 P. 12, statement P. 55.
CLEAN AIR Duquesne Light Co. Inc. v. PADEP Cmwlth Ct No. 188 M.D. 1998 Cmwlth Ct finds Duquesne cannot seek pre-enforcement review of air quality regulations before permit is issued 2/15/99 P.7, opinion P. 26.
CLEAN AIR Duquesne Light Co. Inc. v. PADEP Cmwlth Ct No. 188 M.D. 1998 Cmwlth Ct finds Duquesne cannot seek pre-enforcement review of air quality regulations before permit is issued 2/15/99 P.7, opinion P. 26.
CLEAN AIR Duquesne Light Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and PA DEP 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-3071 3rd Cir. says Duquesne Light lacks standing as to causation and redressability requirements for review of final rule 2/15/99 P. 9.
CLEAN AIR Duquesne Light Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and PA DEP 3 rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 98-3071 3rd Cir. says Duquesne Light lacks standing as to causation and redressability requirements for review of final rule 2/15/99 P. 9.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW / HSCA PRIVATE PARTY Joshua Hill Inc. et al. v. Whitemarsh Township Authority et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-3577 Joshua Hill appeals ruling on lack of evidence that hazardous substances in landfill, although present, are being released 11/27/00 P.8.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW / HSCA PRIVATE PARTY Joshua Hill Inc. et al. v. Whitemarsh Township Authority et al. E.D. PA No. 96-5648 Judge finds lack of evidence that hazardous substances, although present, are being released from former landfill 10/9/00 P. 6. I
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Harold S. Landis EHB No. 91-575-CP-MR Board orders $10,000 penalty for discharge from lagoon, finds chicken farmer failed to comply with its orders 12/5/94 P. 7.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW DEP v Cmwlth CtCmwth Ct No. 3400 C.D. 1995 sees limit to sewage enforcement officer's authority 11/4/96 P.10, opinion P.47.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Ingram Coal Co. et al. v. DER EHB No. 88-291-W EHB refuses to place burden of proceeding and persuasion on appellant in appeal of CSL order 3/7/95 P. 13.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW John and Sandra Trainer, and Plumstead Township Civic Association v. DER EHB No. 94-016-W EHB says it lacks jurisdiction to review DER letter on recommendation and steps in deciding mining issue 6/6/94 P. 13.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Lower Providence v. DEP EHB No. 96-134 MG Board says it has no jurisdiction over notice of violations 11/4/96 P.9.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW McDonald Land & Mining Co. Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 91-173-E Board balks at strict liability for mine discharge where DER has yet to show seeps reaching state's waters 8/19/91 P. 10;
CLEAN STREAMS LAW McKees Rocks Forging Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 90-310-MJ EHB says McKees Rocks cannot argue impermissible delegation of duty by DER but allows other grounds 8/19/91 P. 10;
CLEAN STREAMS LAW PA DEP v. Tessa Ltd. EHB No. 98-239-CP-K EHB orders $121,100 penalty for violations of NPDES for discharging leachate from landfill to river tributary 6/19/00 P. 10.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW PA v.CSX Cm Pls Ct Westmoreland Cty Crminal Division No. 3225 C 1991 Judge says double jeopardy bars criminal claim after civil penalty 3/3/97 P. 4, opinion P. 12.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Richard A. Merry II v. PADER EHB No. 92-244-MJ Board says Oil and Gas Act does not impair DER's ability to order oil wells plugged under CSL 12/20/93 P. 13
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse v.DEP Cmwlth Ct No.3250 CD 1996 Cmwlth Ct says claim is tolled until discovery of contamination 1/19/98 P. 4, opinnion P. 13.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Adams Sanitation Co. Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection PA Supreme Court No. 0044 E.D. Appeal Dkt 1997 Supreme Court says DEP can require party that leases land to abate groundwater contamination under CSL 7/27/98 P. 4, opinion P. 49.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ FILLING Chalres W. Shay and Judith C. Shay and Don Herzog d/b/a Tri-State Land Development Corp. v. PA DER EHB No. 89-500-MR EHB holds principals responsible for filling activities, citing knowledge and failure to timely appeal orders 7/5/93 P. 6.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ MINING Plumstead Township Civic Assn. et al. v. PA DER Cmwth Ct No. 73 C.D. 1991 Commonwealth Court: DER has authority to declare rea unsuitable for any type of mining operations 10/7/91 P. 5, opinion P. 36.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ MINING Plumstead Township Civic Assn. et al. v. PA DER Cmwth Ct No. 73 C.D. 1991 Commonwealth Court: DER has authority to declare rea unsuitable for any type of mining operations 10/7/91 P. 5, opinion P. 36.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ PENALTIES E.M.S. Resource Group Inc. v. DER EHB No. 93-171-CP-MR EHB limits penalty for sewage discharges to $38,640 as stipulated by parties that evidence would show 7/24/ 95 P. 7, opinion P. 34.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ PENALTIES Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP Commonwealth Court No. 1069 C.D. 1999 Cmwth Ct says $3.2-million penalty was not improperly based only on deterrence without fact basis under CWA 2/23/00 P. 5, opinion P. 33.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ PERSONAL LIABILITY Don Herzog and Tri-State Land Development Corp. v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 1648 C.D. 1993 Cmwlth Ct sees 'representative' personally responsible for dumping violations because of his full knowledge 8/8/94 P. 8.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ TESTING Hrivnak Motor Co. v. PADER EHB No. 88-473-F EHB orders resampling of well water before Hrivank is required to provide potable water to those affected 5/10/93 P. 12.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/ U.S. LIABILITY Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. United States Postal Service 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-7073 3rd Cir. rejects U.S. argument of sovereign immunity from penalties for violations of Clean Streams Law 1/10/94 P. 11, opinion P. 25.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW/HSCA PRIVATE PARTY Joshua Hill Inc. et al. v. Whitemarsh Township Authority et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 97-1588 3rd Cir. says Clean Streams Law requires advance notice because it does not provide for private recovery actions 8/24/98 P.10, opinion P. 32.
CLEAN STREAMS United States of America v. Quaker State, W.D. PA EPA charges Quaker State polluted streams 1/6/89 P. 26;
CLEAN STREAMS United States v. USX Corp., E.D. PA , No. 88-7346 EPA sues USX for alleged air pollution in Bucks 2/3/89 P.18; USX consents to $750,000 fine for poluting two rivers; total settlement to cost $2.5 million 4/21/89 P.6, consent decree P. 23;
CLEAN STREAMS Valley Forge Plaza Associates v. PA DER, EHB No. 89-119-M Board denies supersedeas to Valley Forge Plaza, citers flooding potentiaa at pumping station 9/1/89 P. 15;
CLEAN STREAMS Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR DEP insists Westinghouse wants Supreme Court to carve exception to 'discovery rule' under Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 5, brief P. 26.
CLEAN STREAMS Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR DEP insists Westinghouse wants Supreme Court to carve exception to 'discovery rule' under Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 5, brief P. 26.
CLEAN STREAMS Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR DEP insists Westinghouse wants Supreme Court to carve exception to 'discovery rule' under Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 5, brief P. 26.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR PA Supreme Court allows application of discovery rule to five-year statute of limitations in Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 4, order, petition P. 11.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR On remand, EHB assesses $3.2-million penalty against Westinghouse in Clean Streams Law discovery case 4/5/99 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR PA Supreme Court allows application of discovery rule to five-year statute of limitations in Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 4, order, petition P. 11.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR PA Supreme Court allows application of discovery rule to five-year statute of limitations in Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 4, order, petition P. 11.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR On remand, EHB assesses $3.2-million penalty against Westinghouse in Clean Streams Law discovery case 4/5/99 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CLEAN STREAMS LAW Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. PA DEP PA Supreme Court No. 0213 W.D. Allocatur Docket 1998 EHB No. 88-319-CP-MR PA Supreme Court allows application of discovery rule to five-year statute of limitations in Clean Streams Law 10/19/98 P. 4, order, petition P. 11.
CLEAN STREAMS Westinghouse v. DEP EHB No. 88 319 EHB assesses record $5.4 million penalty against Westinghouse 11/18/96 P. 5, ex errpt P. 14.
CLEAN STREAMS/ SPILL ACT Pierre Darbouze M.D. v. Chevron USA Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 97-CV-2970 Chevron says new site owner cannot rely on today's laws to impose liability for conduct 'eminently proper' in 1976 8/10/98 P. 4, brief P. 12.
CLEAN STREAMS/ BURDEN OF PROOF Carbon/Graphite Group Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 90-524-E EHB says DER has burden of proof in appeal from effluent limitations brought by permittee 5/20/91 P.12;
CLEAN STREAMS/ SPILL ACT Pierre Darbouze M.D. v. Chevron USA Inc. et al. E.D. PA Judge finds cost recovery action and contribution action in underground tank case mutually exclusive under HSCA 8/24/98 P. 5, brief P. 39.
CLEAN STREAMS/MINING Carbon Graphite Group Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 90-524-E Board says argument that Carbon-Graphite did not mine property with acid mine drainage is irrelevant 3/4/91 P. 16;
CLEAN WATER ACT /SCOPE OF AUTHORITY Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Resources v. City of Harrisburg Cmwth Ct. No. 966 C.D. 1989 Cmwth Ct. rules DER exceeded authority in loking at changes in Susquehanna caused by dam 7/6/90 P. 6; opinion P. 38;
CLEAN WATER ACT Allegany v. Westinghouse W.D. PA No. 96-2178 Can effect of past emission constitute ongoing violation of CWA? 2/17/98 P.8, opinion P. 19.
CLEAN WATER ACT Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92-7494 3rd Cir. finds no jurisdiction over violations prior to complaint but affirms $1.6 million penalties and permanent injunction against Texaco 9/6/93 P. 5, opinion P. 27.
CLEAN WATER ACT Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. Loewengart & Company Inc. M.D. PA No. 1:cv-89-1559 Judge finds Loewengart liable in suit on basis of strict liability using company's own reports 12/2/91 P. 6, opinion P. 32.
CLEAN WATER ACT New Hanover Township and Paradise Watch Dogs v.PADEREHB No. 88-119-WEHD says DER did not have to promulgate CWA guidelines because policy conforms to federal rules 8/19/91 P. 8;
CLEAN WATER ACT New Hanover Township, Paradise Watchdogs, Beverly Ream v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3rd Circuit U.S. C.A. No. 92-1589 3rd Cir. finds objection to Corps' permit for landfill is not ripe 7/19/93 P. 5, opinion P. 42.
CLEAN WATER ACT NOTICE Columbia Park Citizens' Assn. v. PA DER EHB No. 88-449-F Board says Altoona association didn't receive adequate notice of appeal period 11/2/90 P.11;
CLEAN WATER ACT P.H. Glaffelter Co. v. U.S. EPA 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. No. 90-3648 and 91-3195 3rd Circuit refuses to review Glatfelter appeal of EPA's 'toxic hotspot' view of mill dischar~e 11/4/91 P. 6.
CLEAN WATER ACT PIRG v Hercules D NJ NO. 89-2291 Federal court must show deference to state agency decision 12/2/96 P. 13, opinion P. 48.~
CLEAN WATER ACT Public Interest Research Group et al. v. Magnesium Elektron Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 96-5049 Seeking rehearing on costs, Magnesium Elektron insists it was injured by unsuccessful Clean Water Act lawsuit 11/10/97 P.10.
CLEAN WATER ACT River Foods v. PECO ED PA No. 96cv 7322 Parties agree to dismiss River Foods suit over shoreline oil spill 6/9/97 P. 13
CLEAN WATER ACT River Foods v. PECO E.D. PA No. 96 7322 Judge denies motion to dismiss River Food's oil spill complaint 2/17/97 P.8.
CLEAN WATER ACT Tobyhanna Conservation Association v. Country Place Waste Treatment Facility M.D. PA No. CV-89-0823 Two-year, post filing record of NPDES compliance insufficient to render citizens suit moot, judge says 9/9/91 P. 11.
CLEAN WATER ACT Union Oil v. EPA 3rd Cir. USCA Agency Decision Union Oil files 3rd Cir. challenge to CWA guidelines in Alaska New EPA guidelines for oil and gas facilities in coastal waters are at issue 3/17/97 P.11.
CLEAN WATER ACT United States of America v. Carlos R. Leffler Inc. E.D. PA No. 99 cv 3027 Leffler agrees to $435,000 settlement with EPA one of first suits for lack of 'worst case' oil spill plan 11/8/99 P. 14 .
CLEAN WATER ACT United States of America v. Delaware County Regional Water Control Authority E.D. PA U.S. files complaint against Delaware County unit 5/6/91 P. 17;
CLEAN WATER ACT United States of America v. Robert Brace et al. W.D. PA No. 90-229 Judge says reopened drainage ditches on family farm did not constitute violation of federal wetlands rules 2/7/94 P. 6, opinion P. 13.
CLEAN WATER ACT United States of America v. Robert Brace; Robert Brace Farms 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-3076 3rd Cir. denies rehearing on decision that effects of wetland discharge do not make activities exempt 1/23/95 P. 4, opinion P. 17, opinion P. 36.
CLEAN WATER ACT United States of America v. Robert Brace; Robert Brace Farms 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-3076 Brace seeks rehearing of 3rd Cir. decision that wetland size or discharge effect do not make activities exempt 1//9/95 P. 11.
CLEAN WATER ACT River Foods v. PECO ED PA No. 96 7322 PECO, others seek removal of oil spill lawsuit to federal court 11/18/96 P.10.
CLEAN WATER ACT Allegany v. Westinghouse W.D. PA No. 96-2178 Judge finds groundwater discharge no basis for Clean Water Act claim 2/17/98 P.7, opinion P. 13
CLEAN WATER ACT American Littoral v. Doehler-Jarvis ED PA No. 97-0618 Doehler-Jarvis is in bankruptcy after $1-million settlement 7/21/97 P.14.
CLEAN WATER ACT Associated Wholesalers v. DEP EHB No. 97-080 On reconsideration, EHB again denies motion to dismiss CWA appeal 2/2/98 P.8.
CLEAN WATER ACT Atlantic Waste Flow Coast v. Freeholders 3rd Cir. says lower court can monitor waste flow injunction 12/22/97 P. 4, opinion P. 10.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Citizens Lobby v. Unit ed States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Magistrate judge allows extension oft ime for citizens group to appeal 1/25/00 P. 10.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Judge denies citizens groups' motion to compel EPA to complete record in suit alleging failure of duty in NJ 12/27/99 P. 8.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Magistrate judge denies EPA's motion to stay response to citizen groups' claims over implementation of CWA 4
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) i EPA seeks stay to respond to fifth amended complaint alleging EPA allowed NJ to delay implementing CWA 3/6/01 P. 6, brief P. 20.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Judge finds U.S. EPA allowed NJ to delay implementing CWA by arbitrarily approving deficient water quality lists 1/8/01 P. 5, opnion P. 16
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Citizens groups file fifth amended complaint in action alleging EPA allowed NJ to delay implementing CWA 2/6/01 P. 11.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Groups seeks judgment on claims that EPA still fails to identify bodies of water that do not meet standards 7/10/01 P. 4, brief P. 11.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Judge grants environmental groups' motion for judgment; orders EPA to promulgate 303(d) list for five bodies of water 8/21/01 P.12, order P. 27.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ SITE OCCUPIER McKees Rocks Forging Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-310-MJ EHB rules that occupier of site may be ordered to take corrective action whether or not it caused condition 3/21/94 P. 6.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ WAIVER Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. United States Postal Service M.D. PA No. 3:CV-91-10446 (McClure) Judge finds Clean Water Act does not waive sovereign immunity of US Postal Service for DER civil penalties 1/25/93 P. 6, opinion P. 23.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ WETLANDS United States of America v. John Pozsgai et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92-1454 3rd Cir. affirms ruling that Pozsgais are strictly liable under Clean Water Act for discharging wetlands fill 7/5/93 P. 4, opinion P. 12.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Judge hears arguments on allegations that EPA must promulgate revised list of impaired waters in NJ 8/18/00 P. 6.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZEN SUIT American Littoral Society and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey Citizens Lobby v. United States Environmental Protection Agency D NJ No. 96-339 (MLP) Magistrate judge allows amended complaint in groups' suit alleging EPA fails to list impaired waters in NJ 9/29/00 P. 15.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ CITIZENS' SUIT American Littoral Society v. Doehler-Jarvis Pottstown Inc. E.D. PA No. 97-0618 Doehler-Jarvis agrees to $1 million settlement and to forfeit permit in largest citizens' suit recovery 4/21/97 P.7, opinion P. 35.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ ECONOMIC BENEFIT United States of America v. Municipal Authority of Union Township, Dean Dairy Products Company Inc. Third Circuit U.S.C.A. No. 97-7115 Third Cir. says Clean Water Act allows $4-million penalty for benefit of wrongful profit from violations 7/27/98 P. 5, opinion P. 55.
CLEAN WATER ACT/ SUBSIDY City of Philadelphia v. PA DEP Commonwealth Court No. 662C.D. 728CD 1996 Cmwlth Ct. affirms order for DEP to recalculate Phila.'s subsidy for three sewage treatment plants for each year 4/21/97 P.10.
CLEAN WATER ACT/CITIZENS SUIT West Chester Fish, Game & Wildlife Assn. et al. Oaklands Business Parks Inc. et al., E.D. PA No. 89-4409 Business park lists defenses in first PA wetlands suit under Clean Water Act by wildlife association 9/1/89 P. 10;
CLEAN WATER PIRG v. Magnesium Elektron 3rd Cir. 96-5049 Magnesium Elektron challenges reconsideration of standing 9/22/97 P.11.
CLEAN WATER PIRG v. Magnesium Elektron 3rd Cir. USCA No. 96-5049 Seeking rehearing PIRG says it had no reason to doubt standing 9/8/97 P. 8.
CLEAN WATER West Chester Fish, Game & Wildlife Association et al. v. Oaklands Business Parks Inc. et al., E.D. PA No. 89-4409 First PA wetlands citizens' suit under Clean Water Act filed by Chester County wildlife association 6/16/89 P.7;
CLEANUP/ DILIGENT REMEDIATION Black Horse Lane Associates et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-5031 Black Horse Lane appeals denial of argument that 14 years is 'reasonable time' for seller to complete contractual clean up 2/23/00 P. 7, notice P. 37, opinions P. 40.
CLEANUP/ DILIGENT REMEDIATION Black Horse Lane Associates et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-5031 Black Horse Lane appeals ruling on failure to find 14 years is 'reasonable' time for seller to finish contractual clean-up contribution 4/26/00 P.7, brief P. 21.
CLEANUP/ DILIGENT REMEDIATION Black Horse Lane Associates et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-5031 Essex Chemical tells 3rd Cir. that no contractual duty was breached by failure to complete cleanup sooner . 7/6/00 P.7, brief P. 37.
CLEANUP/ REASONABLE TIME Black Horse Lane Assoc. et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-5684 3rd Cir. allows withdrawal of appeal of ruling that seller did not breach contract by not cleaning up property in 14 years 11/8/99 P. 13.
CLEANUP/ REASONABLE TIME Black Horse Lane Assoc. et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. D NJ No. 97-1250 (NHP) Essex Chemical says present site owner has no legal basis for opposing reclassification for groundwater at NJ site 12/7/99 P.9, brief P. 61.
CLEANUP/ DILIGENT REMEDIATION Black Horse Lane Associates et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-5031 Black Horse Lane insists it was error to find lack of duty to clean up within reasonable time without trial 8/18/00 P. 5, BRIEF P. 26.
CLEANUP/ DILIGENT REMEDIATION Black Horse Lane Associates et al. v. Dow Chemical Corp. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 00-5031 Third Cir. finds no contractual duty was breached by failure of Essex Chemical to complete cleanup under way 14 years 9/29/00 P. 9.
CLEAR STREAMS Darmac Coal Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 91-305-MJ EHB judge says fact issues bar Darmac Coal's motion for summary judgment under Clean Streams Law 3/9/92 P. 11.
CLOSURE BOND T.C. Inman Inc. and Theodore C. Inman v. PADER EHB Board affriam recalculation of closure bond 9/23/92 P. 12.
CLOSURE BONDS Spang & Co. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Environmental Hearing Board No 87-042-E Board finds no abuse in DER's calculaiton of #326,000 closure bond without weighing time value of money 5/4/90 P. 13;
CLOSURE/ BOND Commonwealth of PA Dept. of Enviornmental Resources v. George F. Mayer et al. Cmwth Ct No. 2996 C.D. 1988 Cmwth Ct orders $25,000 landfil bond retruend, says DER waited 13 years without enforcing closure plan 2/2/90 P. 7; opinion P 44;
COAL MINING ACTIVITY PERMIT Florence Mining Co. v. PADER EHB No. 91-077-E EHB denies DER motion to limit evidence, saying limit would dispose of issue involving former permit 9/23/92 P. 11.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and Energy v. Long Island Power Authority et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 93-5613 3rd Cir. affirms dismissal of NJ's claims against PECO, NRC, Coast Guard over radioactive shipment to PA 8/8/94 P. 11.
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Palisades Residents in Defense of the Environment v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Environmental Hearing Board No. 86-265-E Board says collateral estoppel does not bar challegne in P.R.I.D.E.'s appeal of quarry mining permit 6/15/90 P./9;
Commentary Amendments Bradley S. Tupi on new broader protection for lenders 10/7/96 P. 12
COMMERCE CLAUSE Oxford Associates et al. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. Nos. 00-2936 and 00-2949 3rd Circuit says building owners have standing to allege Commerce Clause protects against waste generation fees 11/19/01 P. 5, opinion P. 20.
COMMERCE CLAUSE George W. Harrison et al. v. The Waste System Authority of Montgomery County et al. E.D. PA No. 99 CCV 1418 County waste authority in says independent haulers lack sufficient damages to sustain their Commerce Clause claim 5/10/00 P. 4, brief P. 14. In opposing reconsideration, waste haulers say authority's plan amounts to 'signficant loss,' legally cognizable injury 5/10/00 P. 5, brief P. 26. In reply, waste authority says damages to haulers from county system do not satisfy constitutional standing test 5/10/00 P. 6, brief P. 31. Bank whose credit was behind county facility says private waste hauler lacks standing because of sale before lawsuit 5/10/00 P.8, brief P. 36.
COMMERCE CLAUSE George W. Harrison et al. v.Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County E.D. PA No. 99-1418 Bank that financed county trash-to-steam plant says it is not liable for private haulers' loss from flow control changes 3/21/00 P.5, opinion P. 17.
COMMERCE CLAUSE Oxford Associates et al. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County. E.D. PA No. 99-3026 Judge finds apartment owners lack standing to challenge waste fee system adopted in county in wake of Carbone 11/22/99 P.9, opinion P. 36.
COMMERCE CLAUSE Oxford Associates et al. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. Nos. 00-2936 and 00-2949 3rd Cir. sets oral argument July 27 in appeal arguing that Commerce Clause bars county waste generation fees 7/10/01 P. 4, brief P. 8.
COMMERCE CLAUSE Oxford Associates et al. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. Nos. 00-2936 and 00-2949 Authority tells 3rd Circuit that 75 building owners lack standing for Commerce Clause challenge of waste fees 5/7/01 P. 4, brief P. 24.
COMMERCE CLAUSE Oxford Associates et al. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. Nos. 00-2936 and 00-2949 75 building owners tell 3rd Cir. that Commerce Clause bars 'local barriers' such as county waste generation fees 5/23/01 P. 6, brief P. 36.
COMMERCE CLAUSE Oxford Associates et al. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County. Nos. 00-2936 and 00-2949 75 building owners raise issue for first time before 3rd Circuit of individual waste generators' Commerce Clause challenge 4/9/01 P. 4, brief P. 14.
COMMERCE CLAUSE PA Independent Waste Haulers Assn. v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County et al. E.D. PA No. 99 CV 1782 Harrison and county authority agree to mutual releases but PA Independent Waste Haulers Association's claims remain 5/26/00 P. 6.
COMMERCE CLAUSE SCA Services of Pennsylvania Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 92-247-W EHB says landfill did not prove DER had no reason for treating in-state and out-of-state waste differently 2/7/94 P. 5m opinion P. 33.
COMMERCE CLAUSE The Pennsylvania Waste Haulers Association v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County E.D. PA No. 99-1782 Judge allows waste haulers' claim that plan devised to avoid Commerce Clause challenge interfers with their contracts 3/21/00 P. 4, opinion P. 12.
COMMERCE CLAUSE/ ACT 101 Harvey & Harvey Inc. v. Chester County, DER Chester County Solid Waste Authority et al. E.D. PA No. 94-3170 Judge says Carbone is not a 'wholesale, coast-to-coast invalidation' of flow control laws such as Chester County's 10/10/94 P.
COMMERCE CLAUSE/ ACT 101 Harvey & Harvey Inc. v. County of Chester et al. E.D. PA No. 93-3615 Judge denies injunction for Act 101 flow control rules; Chester Co. authority cites difference from Carbone 8/8/94 P. 5, order P. 64. Judge approves Harvey stipulation after finding county flow control does not descriminate per se; applies Pike 9/19/94 P. 4, orders P. 16,17. (Also see Flow Control)
COMMERCE CLAUSE/ ACT 101 Harvey & Harvey Inc. v. Delaware County Solid Waste Authority et al. E.D. PA No. 94-3170 Waste hauler challenges constitutionality of Act 101 and Delaware County waste flow control ordinance 6/20/94 P. 13.
COMMERCE CLAUSE/ SOLID WASTE Kephart Trucking Co. v. PA DER EHB NO. 92-537-MJ EHB judge sees irreparable harm if supersedeas is not granted to allow trucking company to operate facility 3/22/93 P. 7, opinion P. 51.
COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT O'Leary Thomas and Carol et al. v. Moyer's Landfill E.D. PA No. 80-3849 Judge says Moyer's third-party has shown interest in commercial agreement to recover some gases 7/8/91 P. 8, order P. 31;
COMPEL / STAY Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Thomas M. Durkin Sons Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 90-0968 Judge refuses to stay Transamerica's interrogatories of Durkin policies affecting Moyer's. GEMS sites 11/16/90 P.5, opinion P. 32;
COMPEL ANSWERS Brush Wellman Inc. v. DEP EHB No. 98-131-MG EHB grants Brush Wellman's motion to compel DEP to answer interrogatories on authority for NPDES 7/20/99 P.11, opinion P. 29.
COMPEL ANSWERS Brush Wellman Inc. v. DEP EHB No. 98-131-MG EHB grants Brush Wellman's motion to compel DEP to answer interrogatories on authority for NPDES 7/20/99 P.11, opinion P. 29.
COMPEL Concerned Citizens of Earl Twp. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources and Delaware County Solid Waste Authority EHB No. 88-516-M Board denies Delaware Cunty Authority's move to compel after supplemental answers were filed 7/20/90 P. 12;
COMPEL Estate of Charles Peters et al. v. PADER EHB No. 90-421-W EHB finds petitioner did not respond to Wesland's motion that it did not produce requested documents 5/6/91 P.13;
COMPEL In re: Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. PCB Contamination Insurance Coverage Litigation E.D. PA MDL No. 764 Judge denies insurers' motion to compel production of documents 8/17/90 P. 5, opinion P. 24;
COMPEL Municipal Authority of the Borough of St. Marys v. PADER EHB No. 90-448-E Board grants St. Marys authority's motion to compel DER to answer certain interrogatories 4/8/91 P. 12;
COMPEL/ AIR MONITORS Pennsylvania Mines Corp. v. PA DER EHB No. 91-247-E EHB judge orders mine operator to tell DER how many certified air monitors will be hired 12/2/91 P. 13. ^
COMPEL/ SOLID WASTE AGREEMENT Commonwealth of PA, Dept. of Environmental Resources v. York ority Commonwealth Court No. 1451 C.D. 1984 Cmwth Ct finds township's contract landfill rules valid because they do not render DER's ineffective 12/2/91 P. 7, opinion P. 21.
COMPLAINANT IDENTITY Colombo, Frank v. PA Dept. of Environ. Resources, EHB No. 88-420-M Board says complainant's identity need not be disclosed unless testimony would exculpate party seeking it 5/19/89 P.8, opinion P. 49;
COMPLETE APPLICATIONS Harmar Township and Bauerharmar Coal Corp. v. DER and Minerals Technology Inc., Permittee EHB No. 90-003-MJ Board rules DER improperly issued mining permit since application did not contain required information 1/24/94 P. 9.
COMPLIANCE HISTORY Adams County Sanitary Co. et al. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-441-W Notice of violation is not appealable action; effect on petitioner's compliance history was alleged 3/17/89 P.11;
COMPOST FACILITY Hunlock Township and Hunlock Township Board of Supervisors v. Hunlock Sand and Gravel Corp. Commonwealth Court No. 1050 C.D. 1990 Cmwth Ct finds ordinance restricting composting a valid exericise of police 1/20/92 P. 4, opinion P. 20.
COMPUTER DATA/COMPEL Borough of Catasauqua v. PADER EHB No. 90-461-B EHB orders DER to provide answers to Catasauqua; borough alleged incomplete data from computer . 9/23/92 P. 9.
CONDUCT / DEP Eric C. McCleary et al. v. Javed Mirza 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-3358 3rd Cir. says even if DEP official interfered with business, action did not establish violation of federal Constitution 1/10/00 P. 11, opinion P. 35.
CONFIDENTIAL CLASS ACTION Prince George Center Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co, et al. Phila. Common Pleas Court May Term 1986 No. 5388 Stipulation protects confidentiality of tax and other information in Prince George Center class action 10/7/91 P. 16.
CONFIDENTIALITY United States of America v. Berks Associates Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-4868 Judge approves order protecting confidentiality of information provided to Gov't by contractors 5/24/93 P. 8.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Rohm and Haas v. American Cyanamid Co. et al. D NJ No. 99-1191 Judge finds two and a half year delay in alleging conflict of interest in environmental suit supports finding of waiver 12/27/01 P. 9, opinion P. 46.
CONSENT ADJUDICATION Columbia Gas v DEP EHB No. 95-231 EHB allows consent adjudication despite third party objections 10/7/96 P. 8, opinion P. 28, 30.
CONSENT ADJUDICATION Westtown Sewer Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 92-116-E Ramifications of settlements approved by the EHB are beyond board's powers unless breaching is alleged 1/25/93 P. 12,
CONSENT DECREE United States of America v. Allied Signal Inc. M.D. PA No. 90-11-3-239A $4.5-million consent decree between Allied-Signal and U.S. filed in cleanup of Bendix CERCLA site 6/1/90 P. 10;
CONSENT DECREE/ COVENANT United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum Inc. et al. v. International Flavors and Fragrances Inc. et al. v. AT&T Technologies Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 88-4970 Judge approves Alcan settlement despite objections that it relieves bank of virtually all future liability 8/2/93 P. 6, opinion P. 24.
CONSENT DECREE/ FUTURE OVERSIGHT United States of America v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge says consent decree does not guarantee PRPs contribution protection from all future oversight costs 3/7/94 P. 4, opinoin P. 14, 28.
CONSENT DECREE/ JURISDICTION American Littoral Society v. Brown Printing East Inc. E.D. PA No. 90-5297 Judge declares consent decree between PA company and PA group does not bar suit by NJ citizen group 2/17/92 P. 6, opinion P. 16.
CONSENT DECREE/ CERCLA United States of America v. Helen Kramer et al. D NJ No. 89-4340 and related case After eight years, consent decree totaling $95 million with 250 parties is approved in Kramer Landfill case 10/5/98 P. 4, brief P. 13.
CONSENT DECREE/ CERCLA United States of America v. Helen Kramer et al. D NJ No. 89-4340 and related case Settling Work Defendants ask for application of UCFA to all settlement agreements in Kramer Landfill case 11/10/98 P. 13, brief P. 38.
CONSENT DECREE/ CERCLA United States of America v. Helen Kramer et al. D NJ No. 89-4340 and related case After eight years, consent decree totaling $95 million with 250 parties is approved in Kramer Landfill case 10/5/98 P. 4, brief P. 13.
CONSENT DECREE/ CERCLA United States of America v. Helen Kramer et al. D NJ No. 89-4340 and related case Settling Work Defendants ask for application of UCFA to all settlement agreements in Kramer Landfill case 11/10/98 P. 13, brief P. 38.
CONSENT DECREE/CAPS United States et al. v. Rohm & Haas Co. et al. D NJ No. 90-11-3-86 De minimis settlors express concern over settlementwith major parties that caps liability at $88 million 3/8/93 P. 5, letter P. 24.
CONSENT DECREES American National Can pays $130,000 clean air fine 4/21/89 P.18; Carlisle sewer system pays $16,000 fine 4/21/89 P.19; EPA issues consent order to electroplating company 4/21/89 P.19; Rohm and Haas signs consent decree to clean up Bucks site at possible cost of $100 million 1/20/89 P.20; Parties agree to $1.1-million settlement for Raymark Superfund site in Hatboro 2/3/89 P.14; Merck agrees to develop corrective measures fro water contamination in West Point area 2/3/89 P.19; Novak landfill in Lehigh County, 15 others agree to conduct remedial investigation/feasibility study 2/3/89 P.19; Army, DER agree to two Superfund site cleanups at Letterkenny Depot in first inter-agency pact 2/3/89 P.20; AMP enters consent order with EPA for York County facility 3/17/89 P.16;
CONSENT ORDER Concerned Residents of the Yough Inc. and County of Westmoreland v. PA DER and Mill Service Inc. Commonwealth Court No. 458 C.D. 1993 Cmwlth Ct says consent order for one waste reservoir does not bar permit for another despite contamination 4/4/94 P. 4, opinion P. 27/
CONSENT ORDER Concerned Residents of the Yough Inc. and County of Westmoreland v. PA DER and Mill Service Inc. EHB No. 86-513-MJ EHB says consent order means that DER was not barred from issuing permit despite contamination 2/22/93 P. 4, opinion P. 31.
CONSENT ORDER IMO and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. Transcontinental agrees to $425,000 civil penalty and DER oversight costs for ground contamination 5/4/92 P. 7, condent order P. 50.
CONSENT ORDER United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum Co. et al. M.D. PA No. 3:CV-89-1657 17 companies and Dept of Defense agree to pay $628,000 for cleanup opf Butler Tunnell site in 1987.
CONSENT ORDER United States of America v. Recticon Corp. et al. E.D. PA Rockwell to install carbon units in each home or business near Recticcon/Allied site in Chester County 6/15/90 P. 12;
CONSENT ORDER AND AGREEMENT Amber Energy Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-086-R EHB finds shareholders' appeal of order to plug wells is moot due to agreement that led to DEP rescinding order 12/7/98 P.9.
CONSENT ORDER AND AGREEMENT Amber Energy Inc. v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-086-R EHB finds shareholders' appeal of order to plug wells is moot due to agreement that led to DEP rescinding order 12/7/98 P.9.
CONSENT ORDERS / JURISDICTION Pennsylvania a Dept. of Envir. Resources v. Landmark International Ltd. Cmwth Ct. No. 211 Misc. Docket 1989 Cmwth Ct. bars appeal of consent order enforcement, says right was waive dby voluntarily entering order 3/2/90 P. 4l opinion P. 18;
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES Miller, Harry D. III et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Commonwealth Court No. 1724 C.D. 1989, No. 1765 C.D. 1989 Cmwth Ct. rejects consequenmtial damages for permit evoked for three years, cites police power action 6/15/90 P. 6, opinion P. 42; Court issues opinion correcting certain errata in cited authorities 8/3/90 P. 17;
CONSPIRACY / STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 School class plaintiffs say their conspiracy evidence defeats defendants' piecemeal dismissal attempts 9/7/90 P. 16;
CONSPIRACY CLAIMS Peter Defeo and Westtown Sewer Co. v. Pierson Sill et al. E.D. PA No. 92-0935 Judge allows sewage plant owner a new opportunity to allege capricious efforts to obstruct plant expansion 2/8/93 P. 9, opinion P. 53.
CONSPIRACY In Re: Asbestos School Litigation 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-1494 3rd Cir. holds petition for rehearing in abeyance in ruling that bars conspiracy claim against Pfizer in class action 1/23/95 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CONSPIRACY In Re: Asbestos School Litigation 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-1494 3rd Circuit finds no basis for civil conspiracy against Pfizer from associations in asbestos school class action 1//9/95 P. 13.
CONSPIRACY In Re: Asbestos School Litigation E.D. PA No. 83-0268 Judge declares school class's claims of conspiracy of silence reasonable at this time, bars dismissal 11/16/90 P. 10, opinion P. 36;
CONSPRIACY In Re: Asbestos School Litigation ED PA No. 83-0268 Judge says NIMA meetings meetings are inadequate to show Combustion Engineering participated in conspiracy 2/1/91 P. 12;
CONSTRAINTS NGK Metals Corp. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources, Environmental Hearing Board No. 90-056-MR Board denies supersedeas to NGK Metals depsite lack of studies shownig beryllium a carcinogen 6/15/90 P. 11;
CONSTRUCTION/ DEMOLITION WASTE County of Schuylkill v. E & J Dismantling Co. Commonwealth Court No. 2896 C.D. 1998 Cmwlth Ct finds construction/demolition waste is regulated although county solid waste ordinance did not classify them 6/7/99 P.7, opinion P. 14.
CONSTRUCTION/ DEMOLITION WASTE County of Schuylkill v. E & J Dismantling Co. Commonwealth Court No. 2896 C.D. 1998 Cmwlth Ct finds construction/demolition waste is regulated although county solid waste ordinance did not classify them 6/7/99 P.7, opinion P. 14.
CONTAMINATED PROPERTY Allegheny v. Irwin P Supreme Ct No. 30 WD Appeal Docket 1996 Supreme Court says owner need not show property is valueless 3/3/97 P.5, opinion P. 18.
CONTAMINATION EVIDENCE Paul F. and Madeline R. Kerrigan v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 1076 C.D. 1993 Comwlth Ct finds testimony on ground structure is inadequate for proving water pollution, reverses 5/9/94 P. 4, opinion P. 13.
CONTAMINATION/ TAXES In Re: Custom Distribution Services Inc. City of Perth Amboy v. Custom Distribution Services Inc. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-5082 3rd Cir. bars tax offset for owner of Superfund site because of failure to seek relief prior to filing bankruptcy petition 8/28/00 P. 12.
CONTEMPT FR&S Inc. Inc. v. PA DER Cmwth Ct No. 3044 C.D. 1986 Cmwth Ct. judge issues contempt ruling against DER for failing to issue permit for solid waste landfill 8/17/90 P. 7, opinion P. 13;
CONTEMPT FR&S Inc. v. Commonwealth of PA, Dept. of Environmental Resources Cmwth Ct. No. 3044 C.D. 1986 and 1967 C.D. 1987 FR&S asks Commonwealth Court to hold DER in contempt for failure to issue landfill permit 8/3/90 P. 9, petition P. 36;
CONTEMPT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Anthony J. Gentile and Prolytic Corporation of America Cmwlth Ct No. 5528 C.D. 1995 Cmwlth Ct affirms contempt order for failure to make installment payment toward removal of 100,000 tires 10/21/96 P. 8, opinion P. 48.
CONTEMPT/ FOIA Robert W. Grine et al. v. William R. Coombs et al. 3rd Cir. USCA No. 98-3494 3rd Circuit denies in banc rehearing of dismissal of claims against DEP alleging failure to respond to contamination 10/23/00 P. 10.
CONTEMPT/ FOIA Robert W. Grine et al .v. William R. Coombs et al. 3rd Cir. USCA No. 98-3494 3rd Cir. denies appeal of dismissal of claims involing EPA's alleged failure to respond to nearby 'contamination' 2/1/99 P.
CONTEMPT/ FOIA Robert W. Grine et al .v. William R. Coombs et al. 3rd Cir. USCA No. 98-3494 3rd Cir. denies appeal of dismissal of claims involing EPA's alleged failure to respond to nearby 'contamination' 2/1/99 P.
CONTEMPT/ FOIA Robert W. Grine et al. v. William R. Coombs et al. 3rd Cir. USCA No. 98-3494 3rd Cir. affirms dismissal of claims against DEP for alleged failure to respond to neighoring contamination 9/20/99 P.9, opinion P. 31.
CONTEMPT/ FOIA Robert W. Grine et al. v. William R. Coombs et al. 3rd Cir. USCA No. 98-3494 3rd Cir. affirms dismissal of claims against DEP for alleged failure to respond to neighoring contamination 9/20/99 P.9, opinion P. 31.
CONTENT Joseph J. Krivonak Jr. v. DER et al. EHB No. 94-247-E ALJ denies reconsideration or pro se appeal of water ccompany owner from adjacent surface mining permit 9/18/95 P. 12,
CONTINUING VIOLATIONS ALLEGED Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. NFK Metals Corp. ED PA No. 89-7546 Judge allows plaintiffs to try to show continuing violations by NGK Metals despite DER penalties 4/22/91 P. 6, opinion P. 57;
CONTRACT INDEMNIFICATION State of New York et al. v. SCA Services Inc. etd al. S.D. NY No. 83 Civ 6402 (RPP) Judge decides contract indemnification issue in favor of waste transporter; Phila. firms represented parties 10/18/93 P. 12.
CONTRACT Davison Sand & Gravel Co. v. PADEP EHB No. 96-090-R Board says new conditions in dredging agreement may be challenged, not DEP's authority to impose agreed to terms 2/15/99 P. 6, opinion P. 40.
CONTRACT Davison Sand & Gravel Co. v. PADEP EHB No. 96-090-R Board says new conditions in dredging agreement may be challenged, not DEP's authority to impose agreed to terms 2/15/99 P. 6, opinion P. 40.
CONTRACTS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Ronald Burr et al., Commonwealth Court No. 499 Misc. Docket #4 Court says EHB, not Board of Claims, controls disputes over technical matters involving contracts 5/5/89 P.12;
CONTRIBUTION AT&T Technologies Inc. v. Steven D. Heleva et al. E.D. PA No. 87-6711 Judge allows AT&T contribution cliam in Heleva Landfill case without adjudication of AT&T's liability 8/3/90 P. 5, opinion P. 44;
CONTRIBUTION CERCLA Lenox Inc. et al. v Reuben Smith Rubbish Removal D NJ No. 97-5065 (JEI) Judge finds motion premature to dismiss Lenox's effort to recover $1.5 million in past oversight costs at landfill contribution 4/26/00 P.10.
CONTRIBUTION CERCLA Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A & Z Septic Clean et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92 5636 U.S. asserts CERCLA settlement with U.S. does not release settlors fro contribution 2/8/93 P. 6, brief P. 36.
CONTRIBUTION DIRECT CLAIMS United States of America v. Terry Shaner et al. E.D. PA No. 85-1372 Judge rules that provisions for CERCLA contribution actions create implicit right to jury trial in Berks case 7/6/92 P. 5, opinion P. 39.
CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION United States of America and Commonwealth of PA v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al v. Penn Central Corp. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. 3rd Cir. affirms contribution protection for settling parties; CERCLA meant to reward settlement, punish non settlers 12/27/00 P. 4, opinion P. 47.
CONTRIBUTION Transtech Industries Inc. et a. v. A & Z Septic Clean et al. D NJ No. 90-2578 Judge says 200 defendants cannot escape $100M contribution claims 9/7/92 P. 12.
CONTRIBUTION Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A & Z Septic Clean et al. D NJ No. 90-2578 Text of NJ opinion that defendants who settled with U.S. for $4.9M cannot escape $100M claims is printed 9/21/92 P. 9A.
CONTRIBUTION Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A & Z Septic Clean et al. D NJ No. 90-2578 Appeal filed from decision that defendants who settled with U.S. over NJ site cannot escape $100M in claims 12/7/92 P. 13.
CONTRIBUTION Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A & Z Septic Clean et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92 5636 29companies tell 3rd Cir. that settlement with Government bars future contribution claims 2/8/93 P. 4, brief P. 14.
CONTRIBUTION United States of America and Cmwth of PA v. Franklin P. Tyson et al. E.D. PA No. 84-2663 General Devices must contribute $16 million, on ehalf of $32-million cost of cleanup up lagoons 3/2/90 P. 8, opinion P. 43;
CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Alcan Aluminum Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 88-4970 U.S. opposes McAdoo trustees' intervention in consent decree over contribution and convenant not to sue 11/9/92 P. 7, brief P. 17.
CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Jerome Lightman et al. D NJ No. 92-4710 (JBS) Non-jury trial continues on liability of Stepan Chemical to Joint Defense Group with 3rd Circuit appeal pending 1/25/00 P. 9.
CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Jerome Lightman et al. D NJ No. 92-4710 (JBS) Stepan Chemical asks 3rd Cir. to review refusal to dismiss Joint Defense Group's contribution claims for NJ site 11/22/99 P. 12.
CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Jerome Lightman et al. D NJ No. 92-4710 (JBS) Stepan Chemical asks 3rd Cir. to review refusal to dismiss Joint Defense Group's contribution claims for NJ site 11/22/99 P. 12.
CONTRIBUTION United States of America v. Jerome Lightman et al. D NJ No. 92-4710 (JBS) Judge reports accord after trial on Stepan Chemical's liability to Joint Defense Group at two CERCLA sites 5/10/00 P. 12.
CONTRIBUTION. CERCLA Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A&Z Septic Clean et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 92-56363rd Cir. lacks jurisdiction over over whether settlement bars claims 10/18/93 P. 5, opinion P. 28.
CONTRIBUTION. CERCLA Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A&Z Septic Clean et al. U.S. Supreme Court No. 93-960 Defendants ask Supreme Court to review 3rd Circuit ruling on CERCLA settlement contribution claims bar 1/10/94 P. 14
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA Mayco Oil & Chemical Co. AT&T Technologies Inc. et al. v. Transtach Industries et al. U.S. Supreme Court No. 93-960 U.S. Supreme Court declines to review 3rd Cir. finding that settlement does not bar contribution claims
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA Mayco Oil & Chemical Co., AT&T Technologies Inc. et al. v. Transtech Industries et al. U.S. Supreme Court No. 93-960 Supreme Court declines to review 3rd Cir. opinion that settlement does not protect from contribution claims 7/5/94 P. 10.
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA Mayco Oil & Chemical Co., AT&T Technologies Inc. et al. v. Transtech Industries et al., U.S. Supreme Court No. 93-960 U.S. High Court is expected to consider 3rd Cir. ruling that settlement is no bar to contribution at conference 3/21/94 P. 8.
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA Mayco Oil & Chemical Co., AT&T Technologies Inc., et al. v. Transtech Industries Inc. et al. U.S. Supreme Court No. 93-960 AT&T and others tell Supreme Court that 3rd Cir. erred in finding lack of contribution protection in settlement 2/7/94 P. 7, page 47.
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA Transtech Industries Inc. et al. v. A & Z Septic Clean et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 925636 Transtech says settlement does not protect settlors from third-party contribution claims for remediation 2/8/93 P. 5.
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA/ Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al. D NJ No. 89-1031 3rd Cir. denies rehearing on vacating $12-millionaward 8/21/95 P. 10.
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA/ Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al. D NJ No. 89-1031 3rd Cir. vacates $12-million award to Hatco on CERCLA contribution claim, orders hearing on sale contract issues 7/10/95 P. 5, opinion P. 24.
CONTRIBUTION/ CERCLA/ Hatco Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al. 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 94-5276 Hatco asks 3rd Cir. for rehearing on vaating $12-million award 8/7/95 P. 6, petition P. 19.
CORPORATE VEIL Newlin Corp. et al. v. PA DER, EHB No. 83-237-W Board rules joint venture's interest makes it liable for Clean Water landfill but no SWMA violations 11/3/89 P. 9, adjuciation P. 54;
CORPORATE VEIL Wood Processors Inc. et al. v. PADER EHB No. 90-442-F Board supersedes DER order imposing individual liability under "piercing the corporate veil" theory 4/22/91 P. 7, opinion P. 57;
CORPORATE VEIL/ CLEAN WATER ACT Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund v. Kocher Coal Co. M.D. PA No. 1:cv-93-0346 Judge sees no basis for PA Environmental Defense Fund to pierce corporate veil to find company's 'ability to pay' 5/22/95 P. 7, orders P. 46 and 49.
COST AWARD In Re: Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 99-1692 et al. 3rd Cir. says indigency of losing party should be considered in costs award; two of 19 plaintiffs are not liable 8/28/00 P. 11.
COSTS ACT Carl Oermann v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources EHB No. 88-153-MR EHB awards $4,358 in attorney's fees and costs after finding DER not substantially justified in its penalty 12/21/92 P.
COSTS ACT Department of Environmental Resources v. Carl E. Oermann Commonwealth Court No. 11 C.D. 1993 Commonwealth Court says DER failed to petition court for leave to appeal fees and costs under Costs Act 10/18/93 P. 6, opinion P. 40.
COSTS ACT Dunkard Creek Coal Inc. v. DER EHB No. 92-439-E Board grants $8,142 in fees and expenses against DER; refuses to bar evidence not in application CERCLA/ PRP David Ehrlich v. Janet Rino E.D. PA No. 93-5829 Text of opinion finding EPA can hold individual as PRP although EHB found no personal liability is in this issue 12/5/94 P. 12.
COSTS ACT McDonald Land & Mining Co. Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-464-E Board awards $10,000 against DER under Costs Act, same issues arose in award to McDonald in April 5/18/92 P. 9.
COSTS ACT McDonald Land & Mining Co. Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 91-173-E EHB allows $6,193.24 against DER under Costs Act; cites failure to show position 'substantially justified' 4/20/92 P. 8, opinion P. 30.
COSTS ACT Wood Processors et al. v PA DER EHB No. 90-442-E ALJ denies DER's motion to reassign Coats Act appeal; DER sees danger from cross contamination of appeals 11/22/93 P. 12.
COSTS In Re: Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation E.D. PA No. 86-2229 Judge finds plaintiffs' good faith alone insufficient to avoid $154,129 costs for 13-year-old Paoli Railroad yard PCB case loss' 8/9/99 P.8, opinion P. 43.
COSTS In Re: Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation E.D. PA No. 86-2229 Judge finds plaintiffs' good faith alone insufficient to avoid $154,129 costs for 13-year-old Paoli Railroad yard PCB case loss' 8/9/99 P.8, opinion P. 43.
COSTS Swistock Associates Coal Corp. v PA DER EHB No. 88-240-M Board orders DER to pay maximum $10,000 in costs, cites lack of justification for enforcement in record 10/19/90 P. 12, opinion P. 54;
COUNSEL FEES Township of Kennedy v. Kenvue Development Inc. Commonwealth Court No. 1160 C.D. 1990 Cmwth Ct says award disqualifying counsel was abuse of discretion 2/3/92 P. 11, opinion P. 57.
COUNSEL Westmark Diversified Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection EHB No. 96-089-C and related appeal Board dismisses mining appeal of company for failure to be represented by counsel and respond to discovery 4/7/97 P. 11.
COUNSEL/BOND Bucket Coal Co. v. PADEP EHB No. 98-195-L Board dismisses appeal for failure to obtain counsel 6/7/99 P.13.
COUNSEL/BOND Bucket Coal Co. v. PADEP EHB No. 98-195-L Board dismisses appeal for failure to obtain counsel 6/7/99 P.13.
COUNTERCLAIM United States of America v. Terry Shaner et al. E.D. PA ' Judge refuses to allow General Battery to amend counterclaims to allege battery casing disposal by U.S. 7/6/92 P. 6, opinion P. 44.
COUNTY PLAN County of Adams v. DEP, Middle Creek Bible Conference Inc. et al. Commonwealth Court No. 1432 C.D. 1996 Cmwlth Ct says county comprehensive plan is merely advisory in nature for DEP's action in sewage plans 2/3/97 P.5, opinion P. 31.
COUNTY WASTE PLAN SITES Commonwealth of PA, Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Washington County Commonwealth Court No. 925 C.D. 1992 Cmwlth Ct says supplement to list of designated sites in county waste plan constitutes substantial revision 8/2/93 P. 11, opinion P. 45.
COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND/ SWMA Anthony Pastore et al. v. Commonwealth of PA, State System of Higher Education etc. Commonwealth Court No.41M.D.1991Cmwlth Ct says question of state's liability exists as result of acquiring covenant running with land 12/21/92 P. 5, opinion P. 14.
COVERAGE Tig Insurance Co. v. Meco Constructors Inc. E.D. PA No. 97-3162 Judge says failure to find policy leaves third-party defendant without coverage in landfill case 2/10/00P.3, opinion P. 43.
COVERAGE/ SEPTIC TANKS York Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Insurance Co. et al. E.D. PA No. 92-1182 Judge avoids conflict between state laws over septic tank design in insurance case by dismissing PA suit 5/10/93 P. 7.
CREDITOR LIABILITY Pennbank et al. v. PADept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-281-M Board addresses liability of mortgagee, secured creditor for complying with environmental laws 3/3/89 P.4 , opinion P. 20;
CREEK UPGRADE Rouse & Associates -- Ship Road Land Limited Partnership v. PA Environmental Quality Board and DER Commonwealth Court No. 363 M.D. 1993 Rouse sues EQB and DER, saying upgrading of creek had no legally cognizable basis and was legally void 10/18/93 P. 6.
CREEK UPGRADING Concerned Citizens of Chestnuthill Township et al. v. DER PA Supreme Court No. 594 M.D. Allocatur Docket 1993 PA Supreme Court denies petition to review ruling that challenge to creek upgrading was premature 6/6/94 P. 12.
CREEK UPGRADING Concerned Citizens of Chestnuthill Township et al. v. DER WCmwlth Ct: Challenge to creek reclassification is premature; says upgrading of creek does not make existing land uses impermissible at this time 9/6/93 P. 8.
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT Commonwealth of PA v. Anna Smith Bucks County Common Pleas Court 1003 Misc. 1991 Criminal harassment charges dismissed against woman who reported dump behind Perkasie school 5/18/92 P. 16.
CRIMINAL Salvatore Sortino v. United States of America Crminal Action NOo 92-404 Civil Action No. 94-5114 U.D. PA Judge rejects argument that ineffective counsel requires vacating sentence for discharging pollutants into river 10/10/94 P. 15.
CRIMINAL SENTENCING Cullene, Al v. PADEE Cmwth Ct No. 104 CD 1990 Court affirms prison sentence 3/18/91 P. 7;
CROSS CLAIM Jorgenson, Earle M. Co. v. T.I. United States Ltd. et al. v. Robert T. Tosti ED PA No. 90-2024 Defendant may cross-claim against already joined third-party defendant in private CERCLA suit 2/19/91 P. 4, opinion P. 19;
DAM / NOTICE Borough of Chambersburg v. DEP EHB No. 99-0092-MG Board allows Chambersburg's appeal of letter on dam despite notice's lack of specificity as to why DEP n different statutes of limitation for DEP and citizens in Tank Act is erroneous 12/27/99 P.12,
DAM City of Harrisburg v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources and PA Fish Commission, EHB No. 88-120 Environmental groups cannot intervene in dam appeal; motion to appeal also is untimely 4/7/89 P.11, opinion P. 42;
DAM George Skip Dunlap v. PADER EHB No. 89-135-F EHB says appellant should get opportunity to show wetlands project can be modified 10/7/91 P. 14.
DAM Jeffrey A. Seder v. PA DEP and Donald and John Silknitter Commonwealth Court No. 1224 C.D. 2000 Cmwlth Ct. says dam permit application needs signature only of persons having primary responsibility for dam 4/9/01 P. 10.
DAM Jeffrey A. Seder v. PA DEP and Donald and John Silknitter EHB No. 98-068-MG EHB says DEP is not required to determine there is no impact to downstream landowners before permiting dam 6/9/00 P. 13.
DAM MODIFICATION PERMIT Pennsylvania-American Water Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-122-MJ EHB affirms historically set, status quo low-flow release for dam in opposition to DER modification 7/19/93 P. 8.
DAM PERMIT Inquiring Voices Unlimited Inc. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources et al. EHB No. 85-548-R Board says appellatns failed to raise good casue issue for dam extension focuses on original permit instead 8/3/90 P. 12;
DAM PERMIT Schuylkill, County of v. PA DER, EHB No. 89-082-W Board says county has right to appeal DER permit for new Lebanon Authority dam 8/4/89 P. 16;
DAM SAFETV AND ENCROACHMENTS Krause v. DEP EHB No. 97-059 EHB says DEP did not violate due process without hearing 12/22/97 P. 11.
DAM SAFETY David A. Murdoch v. DER et al. EHB No. 93-189-MR EHB affirms Dam Safety permit for township to construct linear park along banks of creek 12/19/94 P. 10
DAM SAFETY ENCROACHMENT S ACT Quehanna-Covington-Karthaus Area Authority v. Sandy Creek Forest Inc. et al. Commonwealth Court Cmwlth Ct refuses to extend creek and sewage ruling -o ban spreading of chemicals that can pollute 4/20/92 P. 4, opinion P. 14.
DAM SAFETY Stanley D. Petchulis Sr. et al. v. DEP EHB No. 2001-036-K ALJ grants DEP's order to compel couple to respond to interrogatories in their appeal of 'unsafe' dam order 7/10/01 P. 4, brief P. 10.
DAM SAFETY Yablon EHB No. 94-344 v. DEP EHB holds mere maintenance of encroachment constitutes violation 1/20/97 P.13.
DAM SAFETYAND ENCROACHMENTS Pennsylvania- American Water Co. v. PADER No. 90-122-MJ EHB says DER's condition on dam repair permit failed to account for several factors 3/9/92 P. 10.
DAM Schuylkill, County of et al. v PA DER, EHB No. 89-082-W Board says factual issues bar summary judgment to Lebanon Authority over Schuylkill dam 8/18/89 P. 13;
DAM Gregory & Caroline Bentley v. PADEP et al. EHB No. 98-058-MG EHB says hearing is needed to determine if consent of downstream landowners is required for dam power 7/20/99 P.13, opinion P. 24.
DAM Gregory & Caroline Bentley v. PADEP et al. EHB No. 98-058-MG EHB says hearing is needed to determine if consent of downstream landowners is required for dam power 7/20/99 P.13, opinion P. 24.
DAM/ NOTICE County of Schuylkill and F.A. Potts & Co. et al. v. PA Dept. of Environkental Resources EHB No. 89-082-W DER failed to assess Schuylkill County dam's effects on upstreadm mineral rights holders.
DATA DER City of Harrisburg v. PA Dept. of Enviornmental Resources , Environmental Hearing Board No. 88-120-F Board orders DER to provide documents on procedures in deciding refusal to permit Susquehanna dam 5/21/90 P. 11;Board refuses to allow DER to appeal ruling that DER must provide internal data on permit denial 6/15/90 P. 10, opinoin P. 39;
DE FACTO TAKING Petition of Kenvue Development Inc. et al. Township of Kennedy, Appellant Commonwealth Court No. 2520 C.D. 1990 Township's connection to constituted de facto taking, Commonwealth Court says 1/20/92 P. 9, opinion P. 45.
DE FACTO TAKING David Damiano v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Court No. 1972 C.D. 1997 Cmwth Ct. says EHB has jurisdiction to determine whether DEP entry on land for stream restoration constitutes taking 6/22/98 P. 4, opinion P. 15.
DE MINIMIS C.N. & W. Inc. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources No. 88-167-M Board says de minimis agument cannot overcome forfeiture of bonds by coal mine operator 6/2/89 P.18
DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENT - United States of America v. Rohm & Haas et al. U.S.C.A. 3rd Cir. No. 89-6005 Manor Health Care files notice of 3rd Cir. appeal from deminimis dismissals in NJ Lipari landfill case 1/5/90 P. 6; opinion P. 54; 3rd Cir. sets briefing schedule 2/2/90 P. 10; Manor Health Care faults de minimis settlements 3/2/90 P. 5; brief P. 18; U.S. moves to dismiss Manor Health's appeal 3/2/90 P. 6; brief P. 29, reply P. 35; 3rd Cir. dismisses appeal of de minimis settlements for lack of jurisdiction 3/16/90 P.5;
DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENT OFFER IMO Tonolli Corp. Superfund Site Nesquehoning, PA EPA Docket No. 111-92-35-DC EPA asks 453 de minimis PRPs to pay volumetric share of $30 million before issuing record of decision 6/15/92 P. 5. letter P. 24, proposed order P. 27.
DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENT Transtech Industries Inc.et al.v. A&Z Septic Clean et al. D NJ No. 90-2578 Judge okays Kin-Buc de minimis settlement 160 parties reached without U.S. gov't involvement 12/7/92 P. 12.
DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENT United States of America et al. v. Rohm Haas Co. et al. D NJ No. 85-4386 (JFG)10 de minimis settlors dismissed from Lipari Landfill since $94 million reopener threshold has not been incurred 10/5/90 P. 7, opinion P. 40;
DEADLINE Leatherwood inc. v. PADEP et al. EHB No. 2000-066-C EHB grants landfill's request to strike summary judgment motion because it was filed 56 days after motion deadline 1/8/01 P. 10
DECEASED Buddies Nursery Inc. & Donald L. Pfeifer v. PA DEP EHB No. 98-165-MG EHB dismisses appeal that names appellant who died seven days before notice of appeal was filed Judge allows cross-claim filed as counterclaim because it is transactionally related to claims in original complaint 3/15/99 P.11
DECEASED Buddies Nursery Inc. & Donald L. Pfeifer v. PA DEP EHB No. 98-165-MG EHB dismisses appeal that names appellant who died seven days before notice of appeal was filed Judge allows cross-claim filed as counterclaim because it is transactionally related to claims in original complaint 3/15/99 P.11
DECEASED'S LIABILITY Bowen Engineering and Niro Atomizer Acquisition Co. Inc. v. The Estate of Ralph T. Reeve and the Reeve Co. D NJ No. 89-2649 (AET) - Judge says estate's r any recover 10/19/92 P. 11.
DECERTIFICATION In Re: Asbestos School Litigation EDPA No. 83-0268 Kaiser Gypsum asks court to decertify sua sponte school class action for lack of product liability claims 3/18/91 P. 15;
DECERTIFICATION PROCEDURE Kaczor Joseph v. PA DER EHB No. 91-191-E EHB says DER failed to follow decertification procedure for mine foreman, grants supersedeas 7/8/91 P. 12;
DECLARATORY RELIEF Louis Costanza v. PA DER Commonwealth Court No. 1339 C.D. 1991 Commonwealth Court says EHB does not have power to grant declaratory relief in appeal from DER notice 4/6/92 P. 6, opinion P. 15.
DEEMED APPROVAL /EHB Eyrich, Frederick, and Harlan J. Snyder v. Pa Dept. of Environmental Litigation EHB No. 88-013-R Board says DER's inaction during 120-day review period is tantamount to approval by 'inaction' 3/2/90 P. 12; Board grants motion to compel geological tests to see if on-site sewage was approved in error 3/16/90 P. 10;
DEEP MINING South Fayette Township v. DER and Mohawk Mining Co. EWB No. 89-044-MJ EHB finds for mining company based on experts who are DER workers; township presented fact witnesses 10/18/93 P. 9.
DEFAULT JUDGMENT Cmwth of PA DER v. Allegro Oil and Gas Co. EHB No. 90-313-E Default judgment against Allegro issued but hearing is still needed to set penalty figure 2/1/91 P. 11;
DEFAULT JUDGMENT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Eastern Empire Corp. EHB No. 93-095-CP-E EHB enters default judgment as to liability but stops short of granting DER motion for default as to penalty 3/7/95 P. 13.
DEFAULT Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. Wawa Inc., EHB No. 89-158-W Board denies DER motion for default judgment, sees no harm or prejudice where correction was immediate 12/1/89 P. 13;
DEFAULT United States of Amerlca and PA DER v. Aluminum Company of America et al. E.D. PA No. 89-7421 Magistrate recommends default against owners of Moyer Landfill on motions by U.S.A. and PA 1/20/92 P. 8, reports P. 31 and 34.
DEFENSES/ RECOUPMENT United States of America v. Atlas Chemicals Inc. et al. E.D. PA No. 91-5118 Judge strikes affirmative defenses and dismiss counterclaims against EPA in Berks landfill case 7/20/92 P. 4 opinion P. 14.
DEFICIENCIES Pennsylvania State University v. PADER EHB No. 90-237-MR EHB says DER is not required to list deficiencies in denial letters regarding use of sewage sludge 8/19/91 P. 12;
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS / DER In Re: Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Co. Litigation, EHB No. 88-090-W DER can't use deliberative process privilege to withhood documents on public policy deliberations 3/17/89 P.4,opinion P. 19;
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. Cmwth Ct. No. 417 C.D. 1989 Cmwth Ct declines to rule on 'deliberative process privilege', quashes appeal of Texas Eastern discovery 2/2/90 P. 6; opinion P. 41;
DEMOLITION WASTE Robert K. Goetz Jr. v. PA DER EHB NO. 91-153-E Board sustains $39,500 penalty for hauling demolition waste, says clean fill must be created at generation spot 10/18/93 P. 11.
DEP LETTER/ APPEALABLE Borough of Kutztown v. PA DEP EHB No. 2001-244-L EHB says letter on facility overload is appealable because board holds prospect for determining reasonable relief 12/27/01 P. 12,
DEPOSITION In Re: Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation No. 92-1183 3rd Cir.U.S.C.A. 3rd Cir. affirms dismissal of claims by three plaintiffs for failure to appear in Paoli Railroad Yard Litigation 10/19/92 P. 8/
DEPOSITIONS Defense Logistics Agency, Department of the Army et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-004-MG EHB bars Army's effort to depose top DEP officials, says DEP basis for cleanup order is set forth in motion 11/6/00 P. 10.
DEPOSITIONS Defense Logistics Agency, Department of the Army et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-004-MG EHB bars defense agency reopening discovery to depose top DEP official, citing 'strategic' decision not to seek info 7/24/01 P. 10.
DEPOSITIONS Defense Logistics Agency, Department of the Army, et al. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-004-MG EHB finds Dept. of Army strictly liable for NAPL plume under Defense Supply Agency and part of South Phila. 4/23/01 P. 10, opinion P. 51.
DER / WETLANDS Hatchard, George W. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-057-W Board says DER is not mandated to deny a wetlands permit simply because Army Corp denied permit 5/5/89 P.11;
DER /TRAFFIC CONDITIONS /SOLID WASTE PERMIT Bichler, Charles et al. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB Docket No. 86-552-W DER cannot make borough's approval of traffic considerations a condition for SWMA permit 1/20/89 P. 14;
DER AS INDISPENSABLE PARTY S.T.O.P. lnc. v. Envirotrol Inc. Beaver County Common Pleas Court No. 1033 of 1991 Calling lawsuit against Envirotrol a 'frontal attack' on DER, judge rules action belongs in Cmwth Ct 1/20/92 P. 7, opinion P. 16.
DER AUTHORITY Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , USCA 3rd Cir. No. 88-3175 Third Cir. rules that Federal Energy authority eclipses DER's concerns for hydroelectric facility 3/17/89 P.6; opinion P.62;
DER AUTHORITY Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. Honorable Robert Jubelirer et al., Commonwealth Court No. 253 M.D. 1989 Court hears issue of constitutionality of Senate veto of DER gasoline volatility regulations 10/6/89 P. 5, DER's brief P. 52; State Chamber defendsn constitutionality of Senat veto 10/20/89 P. 10; Court rules that Independent Regulatory Review Commission or Senate cannot override rule-making power of DER 12/15/89 P. 4, opinion P. 20, dissent P. 30;
DER AUTHORITY Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Chapter et al. v. John Hartman et al, Commonwealth Court No. 258 Misc. Docket 1989 Court says Sierra Club, other lack standing for failure to allege direct injury of a member 12/15/89 P. 6;
DER DATA New Castle Township Board of Supervisors v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 92-540-W EHB says DER need not provide copies of surface mining permit, map, plans or even advise township 10/10/94 P. 11.
DER DISCRETION Mariani, James et al. v. PA DER Commonwealth Court No. 248 Misc. Docket 1990 Court says DER's agreement did not promise specific outcome such as approval of landfill permit 12/7/90 P. 11, opinion P. 55;
DER DISCRETION The Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. PA DER and Koppel Steel Corp. EHB .No. 91-486-MR .AR EHB judge rejects DER argument that appeal interferes with DER's prosecutorial discretion 1/25/93 P. 10.
DER INTERVENTION CRY Inc. et al v. Mill Service Inc. Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Western District No. 5 W.D. Appeal Docket 1993 Supreme Court says DER is indispensable defendant in citizen suit and that Cmwlth Ct has jurisdiction 4/4/94 P. 5, opinion P. 15.
DER JOINDER Mill Service Inc. v. CRY Inc. et al. Commonwealth Court No. 2506 C.D. 1991 Cmwlth Ct judge says DER is not an indispensable party in private suit against waste facility operator 1/25/93 P. 7, opinion P. 53.
DER LATITUDE Andrews, Loraine et al. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 87-482-W Board cxites DER's wide latitude in considering broad range of factors' in sewage plant review 6/2/89 P.17
DER LETTER/APPEALABLE ACTION Delta Excavating and Trucking Co. Inc. et al. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 86-614-W Board says DER's letter is an appealable action because it requires a new treatment proposal 3/17/89 P.10;
DER OFFICIALS' IMMUNITY Wynn, Richard et al. v. Wayne L. Lynn ED PA No. 88-7794 Judge upholds DER oficial's qualified immunity to use discretion in enforcing environmental laws 2/1/91 P. 7, opinion P. 42;
DER OFFICIALS Richard Winn et al. v. Wayne L. Lynn 3rd Cir. U.S.C.A. No. 91-1033 3rd Cir. finds DER official and attorney enjoy qualified immunity for naming individuals 9/9/91 P. 4; opinion P. 18.
DER OFFICIALS Winn, Richard et al. v. Wayne L. Lynn et al. E.D. PA No. 88-7794 Judge finds DER official and attorney are immune from liability for naming individuals in cleanup order 9/7/90 P. 7, opinion P. 22;
DER ORDER (CONSTRUING) Benjamin Coal Co. et al. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 89-099-W Coal operator, arguing 1986 order must be construed as contract in most favorable terms, gets EHB ruling 6/16/89 P.11, opinion P. 31;
DER OVERSIGHT / SEWAGE Bear Creek Township v. PA DER Environmental Hearing Board No. 87-428-F Board affirms DER's authority to require municipalities to update sewage facilities plans and correct systems 12/7/90 P. 9;
DER RECORDS / INTERROGATORIES Brady's Bend Corp. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources et al, EHB Docket No. 88-306-R Board orders DER to answer interrogatories without an extensive search of its records 2/3/89 P.20;
DER/ CONTRACTS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Ronald Burr et al., Commonwealth Court No. 499 Misc. Docket #4 Court says EHB, not Board of Claims, controls disputes over technical matters involving contracts 5/5/89 P.12;
DER/ DISCOVERY Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Envir. Resources v. Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Co. et al., EHB Docket No. 88-090-CP-W Board determines what constitutes 'burdensome' discovery sought by Texas Eastern against DER 2/3/89 P.4, opinion P. 24;
DER/ DISCOVERY Kirila Contractors Inc. v. PADept. of Environmental Resources, EHB Dockete No. 87-282-R Board orders contractor to reply to DER discovery.
DER/ DOCUMENTS In Re: Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Co. Litigation, EHB No. 88-090-W DER can't use deliberative process privilege to withhood documents on public policy deliberations 3/17/89 P.4, opinion P. 19;
DER/ ECONOMIC IMPACT Mathies Coal Co. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, PA Supreme Court No. 5 W.D. Appeal PA Supreme Court says DER is not required to consider economic impact of permit limitations on discharger 6/16/89 P.4, opinion P. 16;
DER/ EVIDENCE R.E.M. Coal Co. Inc. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-519-F Board denies supersedeas in mine discharge cases on strength of DER's evidence 3/17/89 P.14;
DER/ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Profitt, Raymond v. Arthur Davis, E.D. PA No. 87-1279 DER is not subject to federal Right-to-Know, FOIA or Sunshine Act 3/17/89 P.12, opinion P. 54;
DER/ INCONSISTENT ACTIONS Swistock Associates Coal Corp. v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB No. 88-240-M Evidence of inconsistent actions by DER is relevant to post-mine flooding proceeding 4/7/89 P.14;
DER/ PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Pennsylvania Fish Commission et al. v PA Dept. Envir. Resources et al, EHB No. 86-338-W Board confirms supersedeas in Fish Commission's legal battle over mining permit issued by DER 6/2/89 P.17;
DEVEMOPMENT PLAN Craft, James E t/d/a/ Susquehanna Land Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-060-MR Board says DER made it clear that no action would be required of DER until plan was resubmitted 12/21/90 P. 12;
DIRECT ACTION Allegheny Center Associates v. Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co. Allegheny Co. Cm. Pls. Ct. No. 89-21925 Large Pittsburgh complex sues its three insurers directly over asbestos under all risk policies 11/16/90 P. 9;
DIRECT CLAIMS United States of America v. Terry Shaner et al E.D. PA No. 85-1372 Judge denies U.S. motion to add direct claims for four third-party defendants in Brown's site action 7/6/92 P. 6, opinion P. 31.
DIRECT INTEREST Associated Wholesalers v. DEP EHB No. 97-080 Co-occupants of shopping center have direct interest' EHB says v. DEP 1/5/98 P. 10a
DISCHARGE C & K Coal Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 91-138-E EHB says DER failed to sustain burden of proof that discharge from public road emanated from permit area 10/19/92 P. 9.
DISCHARGE Vesta Mining Co. v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 609 C.D. 1993 Cmwlth Ct says DER need not recalculate discharge effluent limitations when only change is in discharge 5/23/94 P. 5, opinion P . 19.
DISCHARGES AL Hamilton Contracting Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 88-113-W EHB finds DER failed to establish prima facie case of liability for groundwater discharge 1/11/93 P. 10.
DISCLOSURE City of Harrisburg v. PA DER EHB NO. 88-120-F EHB says DER need not disclose documents and internal procedures 2/1/91 P. 9, opinion P. 45; Board denies DER's request to extend discovery 2/1/91 P. 10;
DISCLOSURE HEALTH STUDIES In Re: Three Mile Island M.D. PA No. 79-0432 Three Mile Island Health Fund gets records of radiation exposure at nuclear weapons plants 7/6/90 P. 13;
DISCLOSURE Carl A. Seils and Deborah R. Seils v. Gettysburg Area Industrial Development Authority et al. Common Pleas Court of Adams County No. 94-S-35 SWMA does not impose a duty to disclose contamination that supports claim of implied warranty, judge declares 10/21/96 P.6, opinion P. 14.
DISCLOSURE/ WATER CHARACTERIZATION REPORT Republic Environmental Systems (PA) Inc. v. Reichhold Chemicals Inc. E.D. PA No. 93 CV 6092 Judge finds Reichhold Chemicals had adequate notice of fraud claim over alleged failure to disclose contents 4/4/94 P. 7, opinion P. 35.
DISCOVERY (EXPERTS) C&L Enterprises and Carol Rodgers v. PA Dept. of Envir. Resources, EHB Docket No. 86-626-R Board denies DER petition to incorporate supersedeas testimony and exhibit into hearing on permits 1/20/89 P. 16; Board allows discovery of expert not identified in pre-hearing memorandum 1/20/89 P. 17;
DISCOVERY / COMPEL Donan, Anderson W. v. PA DERE EHB No. 88-375-F Party in appeal is not excused from discovery request simply because material is in another case, board says 12/21/90 P. 12
DISCOVERY / DER DRAFT DOCUMENTS F.A.W. Associates v. PA DER EHB NO. 90-228-N DER ordered to produce draft policy document in appeal of noncoal surface mining order 1/4/91 P. 7;
DISCOVERY / SANCTIONS Coalition of Religious and Civic Organizations Inc. et al. c. PA DER EHB No. 90-128-W Board ruling in Pfizer Pigments case covers sanctions, fees, overbroad and burdensome discovery, relevance 11/16/90 P. 12, opinion P. 48;
DISCOVERY /EHB Mendelson, Mark and Elaine v. PA Dept. of Environmental Resources et al. EHB No. 88-336-M Board refuses to allow appellants 270 more days to prepare case against incinerator permit. 1/19/90 P. 16;
DISCOVERY Americal Littoral Society v. Paul Restall Associates Inc. E.D. PA No. 90-7622 Judge warns discovery sanction could include no client being charged for either counsel's tin~ 3/9/92 P. 6, opinion P. 42.
DISCOVERY Arthur v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 90-043-F ALJ says petitioners' notice of appeal can be amended after discovery to add new objection to DER approval 9/21/92 P. 8, opinion P. 25.
DISCOVERY BUSINESS RECORFDS Joseph Blosenski Jr. et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 85-222-MR EHB says agreement allowed DER to move business records into evidence en masse 3/23/92 P. 10. NESHAP Unlted States of America v. Corning Inc. et al. M.D. PA No. 3 CV 90-207 Corning agrees to $1.8-million settlement for arsenic emissions at two facilities 3/23/92 P. 11.
DISCOVERY Circuit City Stores Inc. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. et al. E.D. PA No. 92 7394 Judge grants Circuit City's motion to exclude reports in tank case, cites witnesses' lack of personal knowledge 8/21/95 P. 7, opinion P. 21.
DISCOVERY City of Harrisburg v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 91-250-MJ Board allows discovery of Harrisburg incinerator costs since appeal raises issue of waste disposal costs 3/23/92 P. 4, opinion P. 26.
DISCOVERY Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources v. Chapin & Chapin Inc. EHB No. 91-181-CP-F ALJ bars testimony as sanction for repeated violations of discovery rules in air pollution case 8/24/92 P. 9.
DISCOVERY Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Envir. Resources v. Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Co. et al., EHB Docket No. 88-090-CP-W Board determines what constitutes 'burdensome' discovery sought by Texas Eastern against DER 2/3/89 P.4, opinion P. 24;
DISCOVERY Concerned Citizens of Earl Township et al. v. PA DER and Delaware County Solid Waste Authority, Permittee EHB No. 88-516-M Board says discovery conditions at landfill 7/22/91 P. 10;
DISCOVERY Concerned Resident of the Yough Inc. v. PA DER and Mill Service Inc. EHB No. 92-106-MJ EHB judge sustains Mill Service's objection to interrogatories and documents as untimely 12/7/92
DISCOVERY Darmac Coal Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 91-305-MJ EHB holds DER to discovery rules even when entering mine site by virtue ot authority 1/6/92 P. 14.
DISCOVERY Ernest Barkman et al. v. PADER EHB No. 90-412-W DER ordered to produce confidential documents because of failure to timely file objections 5/6/91 P.915;
DISCOVERY Estate of Charles Peters et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-421-W EHB cites burden in requiring design of systems now in order to answer discovery interrogatories 6/3/91 P.12;
DISCOVERY In Re Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. PCB Contamination Insurance Coverage Litigation E.D. PA MDL Docket No. 764 Judge adopts Master's report, orders production of Texas Eastern documents except attorney-client 6/3/91 P. 7, opinion P. 33;
DISCOVERY Kerry Coal Co. v. Pa. Dept. Env. Resources EHB No. 89-231-E Board compels DER to answer interrogatories on consultants who reviewed mine permit applications 2/16/90 P. 11;
DISCOVERY Kochems v. DEP EHB No. 96-187 EHB cites appellants' failure to respond in water permit appeal 5/5/98 P.9.
DISCOVERY Linn Corp. and L.T. Contracting Inc. v. PA DER EHB No. 92-413-E ALJ grants DER motion to strike objections and inadequate responses in surface mining appeal 4/5/93 P. 11.
DISCOVERY Montgomery County v. PA DER et al. EHB No. 91-053-F EHB judge denies to strike all discovery of intervenor Browning-Ferris 1/20/92 P. 10.
DISCOVERY Morgan Brothers Builders Inc. et al. V. PADEP EHB No. 99-194-K ALJ extends prehearing deadlines by only 60 days, citing petitioner's lack of effort in initiating discovery 1/25/00 P.12.
DISCOVERY Pozsgai John v. PA DER EHB No. 90-063 Board denies DER's motion for Pozsgai to respond to interrogatories pertaining to wetlands actions 10/19/90 P. 10, opinion P. 32;
DISCOVERY Sedat Inc. et al. v. DER Commonwealth Court No. 449 M.D. 1993 Panel says DER attorney's memo on impact of opinion is insulated from discovery under attorney-client rule 5/23/94 P. 7.
DISCOVERY Spang & Co. v. PA DER EHB No. 87-042-E EHB judge denies reconsideration of refusal to reopen record after remand by Cmwlth Ct 8/10/92 P. 9.
DISCOVERY William and Mary Belitskus et al. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection et al. EHB No. 96-196-MR EHB judge says appellants must respond to interrogatories but declines to certify questions not to be asked of them 4/7/97 P.12.
DISCOVERY Willowbrook Mining Co. v. PADER EHB NO. 90-346-E DER must list authority it relied upon to use documents to review mining permit application 4/8/91 P. 12;
DISCOVERY/ DER FILES Hartpence Lawrence W. et al. v. PADER EHB No. 90-028-MR EHB allows discovery into DER files regarding similar civil penalties for refusal to permit entry 5/6/91 P.11;
DISCOVERY/ EXTENSION In Re Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. PCB Contamination Insurance Coverage Litigation E.D. PA MDL 764 Judge refuses to extend time for Texas Eastern to serve second set of requests for admissions 5/6/91 P.6, opinion P. 25;
DISCOVERY/ OIL, PCBs United States of America v. Union Corp. et al. E.D. PA No. 80-1589 Judge sets May 31 deadline for discovery with respect to defendants' and intervenors' claims in Cottman site 1/8/01 P. 8.
DISCOVERY/ SANCTIONS Empire Sanitary Landfill Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 90-158-F Board denies Empire's motion for sanctions against DER for failure to produce evidence 10/7/91 P. 13.
DISCOVERY/ SANCTIONS Empire Sanitary Landfill Inc. v. PADER EHB No. 90-158-F Board denies Empire's motion for sanctions against DER for failure to produce evidence 10/7/91 P. 13.
DISCOVERY/ COMPEL Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Army etc. v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-004-MG
DISCOVERY COMPEL Valley Creek Coalition v. PADEP EHB No. 2000-068-MG EHB grants citizen group's motion to compel Vanguard to answer questions regarding post-construction discharge 8/18/00 P. 8.
DISCOVERY/COMPEL Concerned Citizens of Earl Township v. PA DER and Delaware County Solid Waste Authority EHB No. 88-516-M Motion to compel answers related to one period does not authorize general discovery, board rules 2/19/91 P. 7;
DISCOVERY/DER FILES Korgeski Lawrence W. v. PA DER EHB No. 90-028-MR EHB refuses to reconsider ruling that allows discovery into DER files on similar penalties 6/24/91 P. 12;
DISCRETION Colombo, Frank d/b/a/ Colombo Transportation Services et al. v. PA DER EHB No. 88-420 DER may remove all but civil penalties, thus blocking permit 4/22/91 P. 13
DISCRETION Pohoqualine Fish Assn. v. DER EHB. No. 91-084-E EHB says DER abused discretion in approving on-lot sewage 9/6/93 P. 11.
DISCRETION Raymark Industries Inc. et al. PA DER EHB No. 89-294-E DER's decision to litigate rather than settle landfill closure case is not subject to review 10/5/90 P. 10;
DISCRETION Robinson Twp. Bd. of Supervisors v. PA Dept of Environmental Resources et al. EHB NO. 87-242-R Board says it cannot substitute its discretion for DER's without evidence of abuse 2/16/90 P. 9;
DISCRETION Washington Township Concerned Citizens v. PA DER EHB NO. 90-152-F Board says it lacks power to review allegations that DER failed to enforce conditions of permit 2/19/91 P. 11;
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT Chester Residents v. Seif ED PA No. 96-3960 DEP says Chester residents fail to show permit discrimination3/9/98 P.5, briefs 14, 15.
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT Chester Residents v. Seif 3rd Cir USCA No. 97-1125 3rd Cir. says citizens may alleged discriminatory effect against PADEP 1/5/98 P. 4, opinion P. 11.
DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT F.R.&S Inc. Pioneer Crossing Landfill v.
PADEP Commonwealth Court No. 1512 C.D. 1999 Cmwth Ct says $315,000 penalty for failure to meet capping deadine a landfill was not discriminatory enforcement USMP seeks directed verdict in Pennsylvania’s action that claims asbestos fireproofing was contaminated with PCBs 9/15/00 P. 4, OPINION P. 30.
DISMISSAL/ ISSUES Consolidated Rail Corp. v. PA DEP EHB No. 97-208-MR EHB refuses to dismiss Conrail appeal of bridge incident, says DEP offers no assurance it will not be used 4/20/98 P. 9.