Discover published sets by community

Verdict: EPA must regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Significance: Established that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Verdict: The court denied standing to Sierra Club because of lack of injury. Significance: Led to the understanding that environmental groups must show direct harm to their members, not just general environmental interests.

Verdict: Protection of endangered species took precedence over completion of a nearly finished dam. Significance: Reinforced the Endangered Species Act as having 'institutionalized caution' concerning potential extinction.

Verdict: Established the Chevron deference, giving agencies interpretation of statutes leeway. Significance: This case provided a legal test for determining when court should defer to agency's expertise.

Verdict: Established the requirement for federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EIS). Significance: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was pivotal in ensuring federal actions consider environmental impacts.

Verdict: Parent corporations can be held directly liable for the actions of their subsidiaries if they operate the facility directly. Significance: Important for corporate liability in environmental contamination.

Verdict: The court failed to reach a majority, creating a plurality opinion. Significance: This case reflects ongoing contention on the scope of the Clean Water Act, particularly the federal government's jurisdiction over wetlands and waterways.

Verdict: The court ruled that compulsory school attendance beyond 8th grade violated the Amish community's First Amendment rights. Significance: Significant for religious freedom; however, not an environmental law case; mistakenly included in this set.

Verdict: Environmental organizations were granted standing to sue polluters. Significance: The decision allowed for citizen suits and expanded access to environmental justice.

Verdict: Unanimous decision that the homeowner was owed just compensation due to a regulatory taking. Significance: The case set a precedent for evaluating when a regulation becomes a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment.

Verdict: The Supreme Court upheld zoning as a legitimate use of government police power. Significance: Laid the groundwork for local zoning ordinances and their application.

Verdict: Private property was taken for public use without just compensation. Significance: Established the concept of regulatory taking and balanced private property rights against public interest.

Verdict: N/A - It's comprehensive federal legislation. Significance: Provides the legal framework for air pollution control and aims to protect public health and the environment from airborne contaminants.

Verdict: Reduced punitive damages awarded against Exxon for the Valdez oil spill. Significance: Resulted in a rule that punitive damages should be reasonable and proportionate to the harm.

Verdict: N/A - It's an agency rule. Significance: Defines which waters fall under federal jurisdiction for the Clean Water Act, subject to ongoing litigation and policy changes.

Verdict: Granted equitable apportionment of the waters between the two states. Significance: It is a foundational case in the doctrine of equitable apportionment for interstate water disputes.

Verdict: N/A - It's a major piece of environmental legislation in the United States. Significance: Established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States.

Verdict: The Army Corps of Engineers did not have the authority to regulate isolated ponds based on migratory birds. Significance: It limited the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

Verdict: N/A - Critical legislation for the conservation and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals and their habitats. Significance: Provides a framework for the conservation of biodiversity.

Verdict: State common-law nuisance claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act's permit system. Significance: Affirmed that states could not impose separate standards on out-of-state pollution sources already holding federal permits under the Clean Water Act.

Verdict: N/A - Also known as 'Superfund,' it helps clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances. Significance: Allows for cleanup of contaminated sites and holds responsible parties liable.

Verdict: N/A - This was not a court case but an environmental disaster that led to the creation of Superfund legislation. Significance: It brought widespread public attention to the issue of hazardous waste site cleanup and spurred CERCLA.

Verdict: N/A - This act regulates the management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. Significance: Establishes the framework for the proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste.

Verdict: The court held that Defenders of Wildlife did not have standing because no injury was shown. Significance: Set a standard for establishing standing in environmental cases, with implications for how injury is proved under the Endangered Species Act.