Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
- Tenth Circuit Clarifies Diligent Prosecution Bar to Citizen Suits under Clean Air Act
- Eleventh Circuit Allows Federal Officer Removal for EPA-Directed Cleanup
- Supreme Court Holds FIFRA Preempts State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claims Challenging EPA-Approved Labels
- California Federal Court Holds Agencies May Be Liable Under Clean Air Act Citizen Suit Provision
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Loper Bright
- Agency Action
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- 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
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- 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
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- 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
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- 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
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- D.C. Circuit
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- CISWI
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Certification
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Expert Witness
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- Third Circuit
- Removal
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Real Estate
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
OK, admittedly, this case has little to do with environmental law or civil procedure, but sometimes the facts are good enough to make a decision worth noting.
In Doyle v. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, No. 2011-420 (Jan. 13, 2012), the New Hampshire Supreme Court struck down an Administrative Rule that required anyone “[h]olding or organized or special events which go beyond routine recreational activities” in state parks to apply, at least 30 days in advance, for a special-use permit. Assuming, but not deciding, that Monadnock State Park was a traditional public forum, the Court held that the Rule violated the New Hampshire State Constitution’s free speech protections because it was not narrowly tailored to address the state’s asserted interest in preventing visitors from “unwelcome or unwarranted interference, annoyance or danger.”
So, with such a lofty principle as free speech rights at issue, you would expect that the plaintiff, Mr. Doyle, had been planning a political protest, or maybe a religious retreat, wouldn’t you? But no. This is what Mr. Doyle wanted to do: dress up as Big Foot, and his friends as Yoda and a pirate and interview hikers who came upon them, as a follow up to a prior hoax “Bigfoot sighting” he staged involving park staff members which, I suspect, may have been somewhat embarrassing to the park management. Yet, in the end, the force was not with the DRED, and Chewie, Yoda, and friends are free to return to Mount Monadnock thanks to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
For your viewing pleasure, here’s Mr. Doyle’s original visit to Mount Monadnock:
