Cases

Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No. 3:15-cv-00424 (M.D. Tenn. August 4, 2017)

Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No. 3:15-cv-00424 (M.D. Tenn. August 4, 2017)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

For decades, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) disposed coal ash from a coal-fired power plant near Gallatin, Tennessee into unlined ponds adjacent to the Cumberland River.  Two local organizations filed a case alleging violations of the Clean Water Act.    

Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No.126 of 2014 (December 5, 2016 and March 20, 2017)

Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No.126 of 2014 (December 5, 2016 and March 20, 2017)
High Court of Uttarakhand

NOTE:  In July 2017, the Supreme Court of India issued a stay of the High Court’s order.  The appeal has not yet been decided.

*   *   *

Mohammed Salim filed public interest litigation in the High Court of Uttarakhand concerning illegal construction and encroachments along the Ganges River, as well as the failure to constitute the Ganga Management Board, as required by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation [2017] ONCA 827

Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation [2017] ONCA 827 (October 31, 2017)
Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ecuadorian community members filed an action in Canada for recognition and enforcement of an Ecuadorian court judgment holding Chevron accountable for environmental harm from petroleum development in the Amazon.  The Superior Court of Justice granted Chevron’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against Chevron (Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation [2015] ONSC 135).

Alberta Wilderness Ass’n v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd.

Alberta Wilderness Ass’n v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd. [1999] 3 FC 425 
April 8, 1999

A coalition of conservation organizations challenged a ministry decision allowing a coal mine to be constructed just outside the boundary of a national park.  One of the questions the court considered was whether the environmental assessment prepared prior to the decision adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the mine -- including cumulative impacts.  

Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007)

In Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, governmental and nongovernmental entities challenged a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which set fuel economy standards, by asserting that the EA did not adequately assess the cumulative impact of the proposed standards on GHG emissions. 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007). The U.S.

Pages

Subscribe to Cases