
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Groundwater Connection to Navigable Waters Sufficient for CWA Violation
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decides EQT Case, Holding Daily Penalties Do Not Accrue for Continuing Presence of Pollutants In Waters of the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Corporate Officer May Be Liable for Deliberate Inaction under Participation Theory
- Fifth Circuit Affirms $81 Million Clean Water Act Civil Penalty
- New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds Historic NRD Settlement; Environmental Groups Appeal
Topics
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Lease Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Railroad
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cost Recovery
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Enforcement Action
- Mineral Rights
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Clean Water Act
- Deeds
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 2 posts in Discovery Rule.
In a 2-1 decision last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals declined to dismiss a lawsuit against Dow Chemical in connection with dioxin contamination in the soils of the Tittabawassee River flood plain. Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., LC No. 03-047775-NZ (Mich. Ct. App. June 1, 2017). Affirming the lower court’s denial of Dow’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and nuisance were barred by the applicable statute of limitations even though the public was made aware of potential dioxin contamination in the river from Dow’s operations as early as 1984. The Court’s analysis, which was accompanied by a dissenting opinion, turned on the fact that Dow failed to support its motion with evidence that the floodplain soils on the plaintiffs’ property were contaminated as far back as the 1980s. Read More »
In a 7-2 opinion issued today, the United States Supreme Court held that CERCLA does not preempt state law statutes of repose that foreclose causes of action for personal injury and property damage claims asserted after a statutorily-prescribed time period has elapsed, effectively absolving potential defendants from liability.
The case – CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (slip op) – involves a 2011 state-law nuisance action against the former property owner, CTS Corp., which in 1987 sold property contaminated with TCE and DCE, which it had characterized as “environmentally sound.” More than 20 years after CTS Corp. sold the property, EPA informed subsequent property owners and adjacent landowners that their groundwater was contaminated and that the source of the contamination was the former electronics manufacturing facility operated by CTS Corp. on the property. Read More »