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

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. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: New York, Procedure, Real Estate, Standing

Although they’ve been around forever, oil and gas leases continue to provide fodder for the courts, as we’ve discussed before, especially in light of the boom (or temporary bust, as some might argue) of shale gas drilling.  And it is exactly that boom (or bust) that brings us the decision in Beardslee v. Inflection Energy, LLC, No. 3:12-CV-00252 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Drilling, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Real Estate, Royalties

In July, 2001, the New Jersey Superior Court decided the case of White Oak Funding, Inc. v. Winning, 341 N.J. Super. 294 (App.Div.), cert. denied. 170 N.J. 209 (2001), holding that an owner of contaminated property purchased before September 14, 1993, was not liable for historic contamination that the owner did not contribute to.  Only a week later, amendments to New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”) became effective.  Among other things, those amendments provided that owners who acquired property prior to September 14, 1993 would not be liable for clean-up costs if “at the time of acquisition, [the purchaser undertook] all appropriate inquiry on the previous ownership and uses of the property based upon generally accepted good and customary standards.”  N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(d)(5).  So, did this amendment abrogate the holding in White Oak?   A decade later, on October 29, 2012, the New Jersey Superior Court has said that it did. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Condemnation, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Eminent Domain, ISRA, New Jersey, Real Estate, Spill Act, Takings

In April, we reported on an Arkansas Supreme Court case which held that, at least as of 1934, the term “mineral rights” included oil and gas as a matter of law.  But what about deeds of an older vintage?  Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court, inNicholson v. Upland Industrial Development Co., 2012 Ark. 326 (Sept. 13, 2012), ruled that a 1903 deed reserving “mineral rights” included oil and gas rights because at the time of the deed and in the general region where the deed was executed, that was the common understanding.  In other words, the per se rule announced in Staggs v, Union Pacific RR Co.* did not apply. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arkansas, Deeds, Drilling, Exploration, Leases, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate

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

Yesterday, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, handed down a decision that should provide some solace to property owners of condemned property who often find themselves in the position of paying for remediation of a property which they no longer own and for which they’ve never received payment. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, Eminent Domain, Landfill, New Jersey, Public Lands, Real Estate, Remediation

Counsel and courts continue to adapt to the “new world” of class certification following the United States Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and the recent case of Ratner v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP, Case No. SU11CV343-W (Effingham County Ga. July 5, 2012), is a good example.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Class Actions, Nuisance, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts, Trespass

New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Action of 1993 (“ISRA”) requires owners and operators of industrial facilities to perform site assessment and remediation activities whenever a triggering event, such as a cessation of operations or sale of property, occurs. ISRA exempts, however, owners or operators who generate or use minimal amounts of hazardous substances from compliance with its requirements, known as a “De Minimis Quantity Exemption” or “DQE.” Pursuant to recently promulgated regulations, in addition to demonstrating the total quantity of hazardous substances handled at the facility are below specified regulatory thresholds, NJDEP requires all applicants for a DQE to certify that the applicant has no knowledge of contamination on the property above any remediation standard, regardless of the source, as a pre-condition to approval of a DQE. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, ISRA, New Jersey, Real Estate, Remediation

With increasing frequency, courts around the country are using their inherent power to control the proceedings before them in order to structure environmental and toxic tort cases in such a way as to reduce, as much as possible, cases to their essence and, more importantly, ensure that the time and resources of parties are not needlessly wasted on discovery or lengthy proceedings when spurious claims are brought.  And that’s exactly what has happened in the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court  May 9, 2012), where the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against companies involved in drilling natural gas wells when the plaintiffs failed to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ activities. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Drilling, Marcellus Shale, Medical Monitoring, Multi-District Litigation, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts