Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Fourth Circuit “Decline[s] to Hit Pause” on Pipeline Project Involving Trenching Through Streams and Wetlands
- When Does NEPA Apply? The Eleventh Circuit Draws a Hard Line in Friends of the Everglades v. DHS
- 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
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- 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
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- 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
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- Contribution
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Certification
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Air
- Waste
- Railroad
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Clean Air Act
- Title V
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Due Process
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Real Estate
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
A recent decision from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reminds that one should never take for granted any procedural matter and, in particular, standing to sue.
In Clean Water Advocates of New York, Inc. v. NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, No. 514924 (Feb. 21, 2013), plaintiffs brought suit seeking to challenge the approval of a stormwater pollution preservation plan submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in connection with the construction of a superstore in Lockport, Niagra County. To establish standing, Plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation, submitted an affidavit of only one member, who stated that she lived within 900 feet of the proposed Wal-Mart location, and up to 22 miles from the waters which Plaintiff alleged would be affected. Evidently, she did not, however, allege any particular harm that she would suffer, nor did Plaintiff allege any harm that any of its members would suffer that was in any manner different from harm that might be suffered by the public at large. This was, needless to say, a mistake.
Under New York law, a plaintiff must show both an “injury-in-fact” and that the alleged injury falls within “the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted.” New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists, 2 NY3d at 211). An “injury-in-fact” means that the plaintiff, or in the case of an organization, at least one of its members, will suffer actual injury that is personal to the plaintiff and not mere conjecture. With little discussion, but plenty of legal citation, the Court in Clean Water Advocatesmade clear that standing was not a mere formality, and without real evidence meeting the criteria, dismissal of the claim was proper.
