183). Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633, 635-636 ("although the actions were not moot, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the trial court's refusal to award injunctive relief"); see generally City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88-89. The party claiming mootness has the burden of showing that the offending behavior cannot be repeated. As Section 505(a) makes clear, a citizen may ask the district court to "apply any appropriate civil penalties under [Section 309(d), 33 U.S.C. Organizing Tip-For all intents and purposes, Laidlaw's trackrecord is still relevant since the same management will be probably beoperating the facilities. Meanwhile you can send your letters to POST OFFICE BOX 11393, COLUMBIA, SC, 29211. The application of mootness principles frequently calls for a practical assessment of whether a case or controversy persists in light of the particular facts at hand. 9a. This Court ruled in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987), that Section 505 authorizes citizens to bring citizen suits to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act, but not to sue merely to punish past violations. In 1979, it acquired a Canadian contract school bus business. Cf. For example, the Court stated in Hewitt, supra, a case arising under 42 U.S.C. The present case, in which the United States participated as amicus curiae before the district court and the court of appeals, concerns the ability of citizen plaintiffs to recover civil penalties for violations of the Act and the costs of litigation for successful enforcement actions. at 318. 182))-was designed to redress that specific interest by compelling compliance. In 1997, Pet. Congress and state legislatures have empowered those governmental entities to call upon a variety of mechanisms-including administrative penalties, judicial injunctions and civil penalties, and criminal sanctions-to compel a facility to comply with its permit and to punish permit violations. The Court's decisions have established the hornbook principle that "[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct, or a statement by the defendant that it would be uneconomical to engage in any further questioned behavior, does not render moot a suit for an injunction if it is possible for the defendant to resume such conduct." Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 636). On April 10, 1992, petitioners notified Laidlaw of their intention to bring a citizen suit under Section 505 of the CWA. C. The court of appeals erred in failing to apply the Court's teachings in City of Mesquite and other decisions, which establish that a defendant's mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. 19:393 the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.,2 a private en forcement action brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act (the "Act").3 The four opinions barely mention the substantive con cerns of the Act and are devoted to justiciability issues - stand ing and mootness. ACTION CLEANUP ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC Environmental Services Among other things, the Act prohibits a facility from discharging pollutants into navigable waters unless the facility obtains a NPDES permit, which, among other things, establishes limits on the amounts of certain pollutants that may be discharged. 956 F. Supp. In 1978 it entered the U.S. solid waste industry. An official website of the United States government. WebFriends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and III, 2, underpins both standing and mootness doctrine, but the two inquiries differ in crucial respects. The District Court also denied Laidlaw's motion to dismiss on the ground that the citizen suit was barred under 1365(b)(I)(B) by DREC's prior action against the company. 81 (1971)). Pet. WebIn October 1991, Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (LES LOKERN), noticed its intention to seek a conditional use permit and general plan amendment from Kern County to expand (a) The Constitution's case-or-controversy limitation on federal judicial authority, Art. Laidlaw had grown primarily through acquisitions of other companies and contracting of services formerly directly provided by government entities. The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from water generated by the facility's air pollution control system. 8 In its brief in opposition, Laidlaw indicated that it closed the facility after the district court assessed civil penalties. 1995) (Laidlaw I) (J.A. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Marianas awarded a contract with a maximum amount of $25 million to Guam small business Landscape Management Systems, Inc. for environmental services at 414, 92 Cong., 2d Sess. 1365(a)(1).1 Section 505(b) generally bars a citizen from suing until 60 days after the citizen gives notice of the alleged violation to EPA, the relevant State, and the alleged violator, 33 U.S.C. 33 U.S.C. This Court ruled in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987), that Section 505 allows citizens to commence citizen suits to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act, but not to sue merely to punish past infractions. WebEnvironmental Consulting Services 541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 551114 Corporate, at 610-611 (J.A. Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. Laidlaw International, Inc. listed its common shares on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: LI), on February 10, 2004, and emerged from reorganization on June 23, 2003, as the successor to Laidlaw Inc. Canadian Pacific sold its remaining 17% interest in Laidlaw Inc. As a part of that program, Section 301(a) of the Act prohibits all discharges of pollutants into navigable waters except those made in compliance with the Act. This Court concluded that the Clean Water Act does not "deny courts the discretion to rely on remedies other than an immediate prohibitory injunction." Glen Roberts was the MedTrans CEO and Donald Jones, COO, at the time of the Laidlaw acquisition. Decided: November 22, 1999 Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. - Columbia, SC Suite 300 PO Box 11393 1301 Gervais St Columbia, SC 29211 - 1393 Write A Review (803) 933-4238 Updated: 1993). CWA 309, 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 632). 182-183). The Court's decision in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), which states that, "to qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim," id. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. We begin by explaining the content and objectives of the citizen-enforcement provisions. After FOE initiated this suit, but before the District Court rendered judgment on January 22, 1997, Laidlaw violated the mercury discharge limitation in its permit 13 times and committed 13 monitoring and 10 reporting violations. May 21, 2018. 3078. The court added that FOE's failure to obtain relief on the merits precluded recovery of attorneys' fees or costs because such an award is available only to a "prevailing or substantially prevailing party" under 1365(d). U.S. Const. CWA 505(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). The Clean Water Act's Citizen-Suit Provisions Authorize Private Judicial Actions To Compel Dischargers To Comply With Their Discharge Permits The Clean Water Act, like other federal environmental statutes, creates a federal-state partnership for developing environmental standards and providing for their enforcement. Nevertheless, Congress has recognized, in light of the sheer size of a water pollution program requiring a permit for every point-source discharge in the Nation, that the federal and state governments cannot adequately enforce the NPDES permit program without citizen cooperation and assistance. The defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." B. at 111, does not repudiate the reasoning in Hewitt and Maher. ", Named a potentially responsible party (prp) in at least 6 Superfund sites.And they are also listed in EPA court data as defendents at several otherSuperfund sites, according to EPA data. But this case differs crucially from Steel Co. because petitioners brought suit to abate Laidlaw's ongoing environmental violations, Laidlaw was in a state of non-compliance when the suit was filed, Laidlaw failed to demonstrate that its voluntary cessation had left no reasonable prospect of future violations, and petitioners were therefore entitled to seek a remedy that would adequately ensure future compliance. See, e.g., W.T. This Court has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the notion that "voluntary cessation" of the challenged conduct automatically deprives a court of the power to order relief. 1319(d). Syllabus Opinion [ Ginsburg ] Concurrence LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. ("Laidlaw") asks for clarification with respect to the environmental monitoring condition and with respect to the information to be required in its periodic updates of record of compliance filings. The district court's statements respecting the appropriateness of equitable relief do not provide what a determination of mootness would require: a definitive finding that it is absolutely clear there is no reasonable prospect that Laidlaw would repeat its violations. Assuming, arguendo, that FOE initially had standing, the appellate court held that the case had become moot once Laidlaw complied with the terms of its permit and the plaintiffs failed to appeal the denial of equitable relief. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pinellas Plant in Largo, FL is proposing to ship and dispose of hazardous sludge, listed as F006 waste, to the Laidlaw Environmental Services of South Carolina, Inc. (Laidlaw) treatment, storage, and disposal facility in Pinewood, South Carolina. 181-182). See also Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980) ("for purposes of the award of counsel fees [under 42 U.S.C. In 1969 DeGroote began to expand beyond trucking by acquiring a solid waste management company. 1365(b)(1)(B). 91). The Court has indicated that those mootness principles apply to Clean Water Act citizen suits. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. (202) 514-2203. Web394 Virginia Environmental Law Journal [Vol. on Public Works and Transp., 98th Cong., 2d Sess. Periodical U.S. Reports: Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services The former Virginia Overland subsidiary operation in the Norfolk area acquired from Laidlaw operates as Transquest and is now owned by Serco. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. 33 U.S.C. 5 The courts of appeals, other than the Fourth Circuit, have concluded under various rationales that a citizen plaintiff who proves that the defendant was in violation of a NPDES permit at the time of suit may obtain civil penalties to deter future violations, even if the violations by that time ceased. EPA, as well as the issuing state agency, may enforce a state-issued NPDES permit. In general, "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." [6] Allied Waste sold the Canadian operations to USA Waste Services, Inc. Laidlaw American branches were re-branded to many different names, depending on their location. In 1984, Laidlaw Inc. exited the trucking business, as the company began a consolidating smaller school bus contracting companies in the U.S. and Canada. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. Ibid. Fined $10,000 for lime blowing out of a storage vent in October 1995. In the Supreme Court of the United States No. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. 484 U.S. at 57. Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeatedviolations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewatersludge (36 total). However, DeGroote is still one of Republic's largest shareholdersand is Vice-Chairman.6, Rollins Environmental ServicesBusiness Week ranked Rollins Environmental's board of directors asone of the worst. 4, In the meanwhile, Degroote busied himself building a new waste empire.In 1991, DeGroote took over Republic Waste from Browning Ferris Industriesfounder Tom Fatjo.5In 1995 DeGroote gave up control of Republic to Waste Management Inc. founderWayne Huizenga. 15-19, supra. See CWA 309, 33 U.S.C. The court next conducted a trial on petitioners' complaint, but the court delayed issuance of its decision in light of administrative proceedings respecting Laidlaw's permit. View all trademarks for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Bdt), Inc. Syllabus Renewable Energy Semiconductor Manufacturing. Official websites use .gov The cash portion will be reduced by breakup fees or new severance agreements with Safety-Kleen executives, Laidlaw has said. In 1998, a watershed year, Laidlaw Inc. acquired Greyhound Lines U.S. operations, Greyhound Canada, the DAVE Companies (specialists in paratransit) and emergency management companies EmCare and Spectrum Emergency Care. 2-3, supra. Id. 2. After examining affidavits and deposition testimony from members of the plaintiff organizations, the District Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing. App. Cadence developed the use of Chem-Fuel using industrial wastes to replace the use of non-renewable resources as fuels for use in cement kilns. 1319, 1342(b)(7). To contact LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC, call (903) 984-8621, or view more information below. Ibid. 1995). WebAfter Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. bought a wastewater treatment plant, it was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Compare pay Laidlaw discharged the treated wastewater into the North Tyger River. The court then requested and received, through a brief amicus curiae, the views of the United States on that issue. 1365(b)(1)(B). In acquiring Laidlaw, FirstGroup announced that the Laidlaw name would not be kept, but that the Greyhound name would be maintained. The court concluded that "the fact that Laidlaw is now and has for an extended time been in compliance with its permit" supported its decision that "no injunction or other form of equitable relief is appropriate." 1365(a); W.T. In 1983, Laidlaw entered the U.S. school bus transportation sector with its acquisition of ARA Transportation, a major contract school bus provider which also owned a Wayne Corporation bus dealership. Services. Laidlaw was fined only $10,000 dueto the $9 million they had already spent cleaning up the site. See Tull, 481 U.S. at 422 n.8. Section 309(d) makes express reference to setting penalties in light of the "the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation." 1319(a), the initiation of civil actions for injunctive relief, 33 U.S.C. WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. Moreover, even if the court of appeals' methodology were proper, its analysis overlooks the relationship between injunctive relief and civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, which would be an essential consideration in evaluating whether petitioners' citizen suit against Laidlaw is indeed moot.5 The court of appeals should have begun by applying this Court's teachings that a defendant's voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. The court of appeals also stated that petitioners are not entitled to recover their costs of litigation because they are not "prevailing or substantially prevailing part[ies]" within the meaning of Section 505(d). Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), exposes fundamental incoherencies within environmental standing doctrine, even while it ostensibly makes standing easier to prove for See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66-67 (1997) (courts may assume that standing exists to resolve whether a case has nevertheless become moot). On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Specifically, the court stated that "a defendant in substantial compliance with its NPDES permit is not required to show that there is no chance of a future permit violation in order to defeat a request for injunctive relief." Practically speaking, however, repeatedly opening and closing the same facility might not be a logical, cost-effective business choice. WebLaidlaw played a major role in helping BFI launch their hostile takeoverof Attwoods in 1994. See CWA 309(a)-(g), 33 U.S.C. The United States is also a potential defendant in citizen enforcement actions against federal facilities. 8a-9a. The Court expressed no doubt that the federal or state governments could bring suit to punish past violations, but a private citizen could not sue to impose civil penalties unless that relief "would likely remedy its alleged injury in fact." Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Marianas awarded a contract with a maximum amount of $25 million to Guam small business Landscape Management Systems, Inc. for environmental services at WebRincon Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1994 and has grown to be a leading environmental consulting firm throughout California. The Court applies the doctrine of mootness to assess whether circumstances have changed during the course of the litigation so as to eliminate the case or controversy that the plaintiff had previously shown to exist. 6 Section 309(d) sets forth standards for a district court to apply in assessing civil penalties in government enforcement actions. This Court applies the mootness doctrine to determine whether circumstances have changed during the course of the litigation so as to eliminate the case or controversy that the plaintiff had previously shown to exist. No. The state court approved the settlement on June 10, 1992, the day after the expiration of Section 505(b)'s 60-day notice period, 33 U.S.C. Beginning in 1972, under the leadership of Michael DeGroote, Laidlaw, Inc. began growing through acquisitions of other companies when it acquired a Canadian intercity and charter bus company. LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC has the Handler ID: #TXD000454710. 1342(b) and (c). By the late 1980s, the only 3 remaining district school bus contracts were at Petersburg, Norfolk and Hopewell. The permit The court of appeals erred in this case by failing to take those principles into account. 470 (D.S.C.1995). (b) FOE had Article III standing to bring this action. WebCode Environmental Services, Inc. has been providing turn-key remedial and environmental construction services to a repeat customer base of Fortune 500 corporations, national engineering firms, and major utility companies for almost 30 years. 8a-9a. 182), but it refused to issue an "injunction or other form of equitable relief" in light of "the fact that Laidlaw is now and has for an extended period of time been in compliance with its permit," ibid. 588, 593-594 (D.S.C. Alleged in two lawsuits, one by city officials and another by two environmentalgroups, to have discharged illegal levels of heavy metals into the citysewer system. Fined $1 million for violations including illegal handling and disposalof hazardous wastes at its commercial hazardous waste fuel blending facilityin Crowley. The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. The court rejected Laidlaw's diligent prosecution defense after an extensive analysis of the substance of the settlement and the circumstances by which it was reached. The bid includes $15 in cash per share and $15 of Laidlaw stock, as well as assumption of $249 million in debt. Respectfully submitted. Heard October 7, 1999. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561; Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 883-889 (1990); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 114-115 & n.31 (1979). Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. Defendant-respondent Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., bought a facility in Roebuck, South Carolina, that included a wastewater treatment plant. "3In 1993, DeGroote and associates paid $23 million to the Ontario SecuritiesCommission in a settlement for insider trading involving Laidlaw stock. We believe that the district court's actions demonstrate its understanding that petitioners' citizen suit continued to present a live controversy under the standards set out in Gwaltney. on Investigations and Oversight of the House Comm. The amendment, which prohibits a court from awarding fees to a losing party, does not appear to restrict the court's power to award fees to a citizen who can show that the suit prompted the defendant to come into compliance. 183). 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. Historical business data for Laidlaw International Inc.: Historical business data for Laidlaw Global Corp.: This page was last edited on 19 April 2023, at 16:25. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court) Ability of individuals bringing citizen-suits to seek civil penalties. Petitioners Friends of the Earth, Inc., Citizens Local Environmental Action Network, Inc., and the Sierra Club brought this citizen suit against respondent Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., to enjoin Laidlaw's violations of its Clean Water Act permit. Laidlaw Environmental provides industrial waste management services. City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289. The doctrines of standing and mootness are closely related because each inquires into the existence of an Article III case or controversy. Laidlaw also has operated landfills and hazardous waste incinerators among LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. at 601-610 (J.A. Held: The Fourth Circuit erred in concluding that a citizen suitor's claim for civil penalties must be dismissed as moot when the defendant, after commencement of the litigation, has come into compliance with its NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw Environmental Services has laid off 23 employees at its Reidsville office and its Columbia, S.C., headquarters in its third round of layoffs in eight months. *90*91John A. Dalimonte, Karon & Dalimonte, Boston, MA, for Matthew Delmonte, Lee Ann Delmonte, plaintiffs. Fined $22,500 for hazardous waste burning violations discovered duringa 1990 inspection. Attorney (s) appearing for the Case Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1021 (2d Cir. . See who you know. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417 (1975) ("If [violators] faced only the prospect of an injunctive order, they would have little incentive to shun practices of dubious legality."). Proposed stipulated penalty of $61,500 for violations of specified operatingrequirements in their hazardous waste storage facility. The companies and people profiled on Corporation Wiki are displayed for research purposes only and do not imply an endorsement from or for the profiled companies and people. 33 U.S.C. Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 422-423 (1987). Soc'y, supra). 1365(b)(1)(A). City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289 n.10 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203, and W.T. at 611 (J.A. in Opp. On June 12, 1992, FOE filed this citizen suit against Laidlaw, alleging noncompliance with the NPDES permit and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of civil penalties. App. See 890 F. Supp. 11046(a)(1), that a citizen plaintiff would lack constitutional standing to bring a citizen suit solely to assess civil penalties (payable to the government) for wholly past violations. Fined $106,000 for discharging mercury at higher than legally allowed ratesinto the North Tyger river in 1992. As relevant here, Section 505(a)(1) provides that "any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf * * * against any person * * * who is alleged to be in violation of * * * an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter." The court refused to grant petitioners' request for injunctive relief, reasoning that an injunction was inappropriate because "Laidlaw has been in substantial compliance with all parameters in its NPDES permit since at least August 1992." In 1983, BFI pleadedno contest to charges of price-fixing and conspiracy in Atlanta from 1974to 1979. Id. But the court denied injunctive relief as a matter of equitable discretion, treating Laidlaw's compliance history as a factor bearing on the exercise of that discretion. 484 U.S. at 67 n.6 (quoting S. Rep. No. Id. Allied Waste Industry, Inc.'s Fort Mill transfer station was issueda consent order in response to charges of leakage and operational problemsthat affected the environment. 86-87). See 456 U.S. at 314. Data inaccuracies may exist. at 9a n.5 (quoting CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. This article is about the transportation corporation. Settled for a $100,000 fine for more than four years of mercury dischargeviolations. A dispute may become moot as a result of changes in the underlying facts, see, e.g., Mosley v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 484 (1998) (per curiam) (death of the defendant mooted review of his criminal conviction); Vitek v. Jones, 436 U.S. 407 (1978) (grant of parole may moot prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement), or the controlling law, see, e.g., United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. at 477 (J.A. Brought on behalf of the Ohio Public Interest Research Group and the Ohio Environmental Council, our lawsuit focused on Laidlaws years of repeated, illegal discharges of heavy metals into the [] D. Because the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's decision to withhold injunctive relief rendered petitioners' citizen suit moot, there is no occasion for this Court to review the court of appeals' suggestion that a finding of mootness would preclude petitioners from recovering their costs of litigation. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. The court noted that the penalty amounted to less than one half of the economic benefit that Laidlaw had obtained through non-compliance, but it concluded that the "total deterrent effect" was adequate, because "Laidlaw will be required to reimburse [petitioners] for a significant amount of legal fees and has, itself, incurred significant legal expenses." 1983, that "[i]t is settled law, of course, that relief need not be judicially decreed in order to justify a fee award under [42 U.S.C.] WebIT Services and IT Consulting. Laidlaw promptly entered into a consent agreement with DHEC, drafted and filed a complaint on behalf of DHEC, and sought state court approval of the settlement. Id. 4a. 1365, and this Court's jurisprudence respecting Article III's case-or-controversy requirement. (TOC), Inc., 956 F. Supp. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. 8a-9a. (J.A. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. 2 The citizen may intervene in the government enforcement action. A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. Servs. If the United States has not filed its own action, it may intervene in the citizen action. at 613-621 (J.A. Laidlaw Environmental Services - Interim Decision, December 21, 1993 Interim Decision, December 21, 1993 STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Office of Hearings 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-1550 In the Matter of the Application of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and Pet. We nevertheless observe that there is good reason to question the court of appeals' dictum that "[petitioners'] failure to obtain relief on the merits of their claim precludes any recovery of attorneys' fees or litigation costs because such an award is available only to a 'prevailing or substantially prevailing party.'" 9a n.5. WebLaidlaw was a great company and community. If an NPDES permit holder fails to comply with the specified permit conditions, the federal and state governments may take enforcement action. In issuing its judgment, the. OCTOBER TERM, 1999 3 The court of appeals "assume[d] without deciding that [petitioners] had standing to initiate this action and have proven a continuous injury in fact."
Where Is The Ubrite Quad Sims 4,
6400 Eastover Dr, New Orleans, La,
Why Does Chibs Have A Sons Of Anarchy Patch,
Ma'lik Richmond Nfl Draft,
Birthday Ideas For Adults Orange County,
Articles L