Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- 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
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
- District Court Certifies 23(b)(3) Class Action Alleging Injury from Misrepresentations That Pet Food Was “Healthy” Despite Presence of PFAS
- Fifth Circuit Upholds TCEQ’s Third Construction Extension for Texas LNG Project
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- 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
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- 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
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Natural Gas
- Contamination
- Procedure
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- NPDES
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Privilege
- Cases to Watch
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Response Action Contractors
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Farming
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Cancer
- Air
- Emissions
- Combustion
- Waste
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Removal
- Toxic Torts
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Cleanup
- Cost Recovery
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Real Estate
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
On October 29, 2024 in Dawson v. Murphy, et al., the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim that New Jersey’s investment of state pension funds into oil and gas companies which allegedly harm the environment constitutes a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”). No. A-3083-22, 2024 WL 4601708 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2024). In an unpublished opinion, the Court held that that the New Jersey Constitution does not guarantee a right to a stable environment and therefore the state’s investments did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Read More »
