Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
- District Court Certifies 23(b)(3) Class Action Alleging Injury from Misrepresentations That Pet Food Was “Healthy” Despite Presence of PFAS
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Certification
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Decisions of Note
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Farming
- Kentucky
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Waste
- Emissions
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Air
- Combustion
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Cost Recovery
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Real Estate
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 2 posts from April 2026.
Earlier this month in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the meaning of “relating to” in the federal officer removal statute. In doing so, it vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit that held defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that plaintiffs’ suit was “for or relating to” the acts it performed under the authority of a federal officer. The Court looked to the ordinary meaning of “relating to” across various contexts and held that defendant had shown the instant lawsuit implicated acts “that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.” Read More »
A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania offers insight into cost recovery claims under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”). On March 6, 2026, in Blettner Avenue, LLC v. Central Uniform Services, Inc., the Middle District denied Defendants Rental Uniform Services, Inc. (“Rental Uniform Services”) and Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”)’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Blettner Avenue, LLC (“Blettner”)’s HSCA claim, shedding light on HSCA’s time limitation provision and the scope of “response costs” under the statute. On the other hand, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Blettner’s CERCLA claim, finding Blettner failed to comply with National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) requirements. The decision provides useful insight for practitioners to consider regarding statute of limitation under HSCA, the scope of “response costs” under HSCA and CERCLA, and NCP compliance under CERCLA. Read More »
