On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, shaking up Fifth Amendment takings claim jurisprudence. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019). In Knick, the Court held that a property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim at the moment a state or local government takes her property without paying just compensation, and that violation of the Fifth Amendment can be remedied in federal court via a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The ruling overturned years of precedent that held that a plaintiff could not bring a takings claim in federal court against a state or local government until she had first exhausted her state court remedies. Knick specifically overruled Williamson County, the 1985 case which established the state-litigation requirement. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Deeds, Due Process, Fair Market Value, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Property Value, Real Estate, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court, Takings, Takings Clause, United States Supreme Court, Zoning

The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (the “Board”) recently stirred up some controversy. Last month, in Lancaster Against Pipelines v. DEP, EHB Docket No. 2016-075-L (May 10, 2017), the Board held that it has jurisdiction to review actions taken by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) involving interstate natural gas pipelines, despite a 2013 decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania that held precisely the opposite. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Administrative Hearing, Clean Water Act, Due Process, EHB, Energy, Federal Procedure, Hearing Board, Natural Gas Act, NPDES, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Pipelines, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Water

We’ve been following the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218, since May, 2012, when a Colorado trial court dismissed the action following plaintiffs’ failure to establish, pursuant to a Lone Pine order, a prima facie case showing that the defendant, a natural gas drilling company, was responsible for plaintiffs’ personal injuries.  The Lone Pine order required the Strudleys to submit to the Court, before it would allow any discovery, sufficient expert opinions, scientific testing results, and personal medical information to support their claims.  In July, 2013, a Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Lone Pine orders were not permitted under Colorado law and thus the plaintiffs could not be shut out of the courthouse at such an early stage. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Causation, Contamination, Discovery, Drilling, Due Process, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts

In May, we reported on the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court  May 9, 2012), in which a state trial court issued a Lone Pine order requiring the plaintiffs to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ hydraulic fracturing activities.  The court subsequently dismissed the case when the plaintiffs failed, in the court's view, to meet this initial burden.  The dismissal was appealed and in Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., Court of Appeals No. 12CA1251 (Co. Ct. Appeals, 1st Div., July 3, 2013), reversed.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Causation, Contamination, Discovery, Drilling, Due Process, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana recently ruled that an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approved jurisdictional determination finding wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) is not a final agency action within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court further held that its holding was not impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Clean Water Act, Due Process, Procedure, Real Estate, Wetlands

As a result of increasing development of natural gas drilling, pipelines are popping up everywhere.  And with them has come a mound of litigation.  In a February 5, 2013 decision, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled, as a matter of first impression, that permits issued by a state agency (in this case, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”)) under the federal Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) may be challenged only in federal court, and not in a state adjudicatory proceeding. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Clean Water Act, Drilling, Due Process, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Procedure, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas Act, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Procedure

Pennsylvania’s Act 13 of 2012, signed in February of this year, revised the Commonwealth’s Oil and Gas Act to accommodate and address the increased activity associated with the extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale.  It included provisions for impact fees, environmental protections, and set-back restrictions.  In addition, it also required local municipalities to adhere to uniform zoning laws that would provide for the development of oil and gas resources in the Commonwealth.  Yesterday, in the case of Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 284 M.D. 2012 (July 26, 2012), the Commonwealth Court in a 4-3 decision held that provision of the law to be unconstitutional. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Act 13, Cases to Watch, Drilling, Due Process, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Real Estate, Standing, Zoning

In a unanimous opinion that probably surprises no one, today the United States Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062 (Mar. 31, 2012), that Administrative Compliance Orders are final agency orders which are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and thus can be appealed even in the absence of an enforcement action by the EPA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Case Update, CERCLA, Clean Water Act, Decisions of Note, Due Process, Enforcement Action, Procedure, Real Estate, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, Wetlands

Last month I blogged about Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (10-1062), the case involving pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders under the Clean Water Act that will be argued before the United States Supreme Court this term. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Hearing, Decisions of Note, Due Process, Enforcement Action, Informal Agency Action, ISRA, Leases, New Jersey, Real Estate

On September 23, the Petitioners filed their opening brief  in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (10-1062), one of two environmental cases on the United States Supreme Court’s docket for the upcoming term.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Cases to Watch, Clean Water Act, Due Process, Enforcement Action, Real Estate, Wetlands