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
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- 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
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- 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
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- Contribution
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- 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
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Waste
- Emissions
- RCRA
- Cancer
- Railroad
- Air
- Combustion
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Title V
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Real Estate
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 2 posts in Brownfields.
In Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings claim against the federal government relating to environmental contamination because the appellants, current and former landowners of the site at issue, filed their lawsuit more than 6 years after environmental remediation was complete. Frazer/Exton Development, L.P. v. United States, No. 2019-2143 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). Read More »
|
Email|
Comments|
Topics: Brownfields, CERCLA, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Damages, Environmental Covenants, Federal Circuit, Pennsylvania, Real Estate, Remediation, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Takings
New Jersey’s Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (the “Brownfield Act”) provides that a “person” who owns contaminated property may be entitled to a Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund Innocent Party Grant (“innocent party grant”) to pay for remediation of the property so long as that person meets two requirements: (i) the person acquired the property prior to December 31, 1983 and continued to hold it until the innocent party grant is approved, and (ii) the person did not contribute to the contamination at the property. N.J.S.A. 58:10B-6(a)(4).
In a decision issued last week, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, held that Cedar Knolls 2006, LLC (“Cedar Knolls”) was eligible for an innocent party grant for the remediation of its property even though Cedar Knolls was not technically the same “person” that acquired the property before the statutory deadline. (Cedar Knolls 2006, LLC v. NJDEP, Dkt. No. A-1405-15T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. Sept. 20, 2017)). In doing so, the Superior Court explained that, with respect to owners eligible for innocent party grants, the Brownfield Act was more concerned with the “substance of ownership and continuity than the technicalities of the legal form.” Read More »
|
Email|
Comments|
Topics: Brownfield, Brownfields, Cleanup, Contamination, Innocent Party, ISRA, New Jersey, Real Estate, Remediation
