17 results for 'cat:"Construction" AND cat:"Environment"'.
J. Mauro finds that the trial court prematurely discharged a writ that directed the Department of General Services to revisit its certification of the environmental impact report for a plan to demolish the State Capitol Building Annex. The Department certified a revised environmental impact report that left a visitor center out of the project. But the Department must still determine whether the revised environmental impact report for the approved portions of the project comply with this court's decision in Save Our Capitol. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Mauro, Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: C100160, Categories: construction, environment
J. Andrews finds a lower court properly dismissed a local resident's objections to a proposed development. The local resident argued that the housing and community authority forged development plans for a crematorium and ceremony hall in a Green Belt, which violates the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 based on its location in a flood risk zone. However, the planning committee sufficiently showed court that it followed a site- specific flood risk assessment drawn up by a structural engineer company, which determined that the land is not a flood risk.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Andrews, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-388, Categories: construction, environment, Government
J. Hurson grants, in part, two third-party subcontractors’ motion to dismiss this negligence and contract dispute brought by the water and sewer authority. The original construction company that hired the subcontractors failed to properly analyze the environmental conditions on land that the water and sewer authority bought, causing them to perform environmental remediation along with other buried debris and waste. The water and sewer authority fails to allege claim of breach of contract against the subcontractors and the language in both subcontracts does not grant them beneficiary status. The contract claim is dismissed, and the negligence claim is withdrawn as to the subcontractors. The water and sewer authority’s request for leave is denied as currently presented.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Hurson, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv1328, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: construction, environment, Property
J. Lindbom finds a lower court properly dismissed an energy company's "unfairly distorted" ruling in favor of the secretary of State for energy security and net zero concerning a proposed development of two offshore windfarms. The energy company argued that the proposed development was in the interest of the public. However, the government's impact environmental assessment showed that the majority of nearby landowners objected to the development and that the project would be detrimental to nearby habitats, cultural heritage, and landscapes.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Lindblom, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-1527, Categories: construction, environment, Government
J. Henderson finds a lower court properly dismissed a climate activist's challenge to three roadway improvement plans. The climate activist argued that the proposed development would discharge greenhouse gas emissions into the environment. However, the secretary of transport sufficiently showed in court that the roadway plans do not breach environmental impact assessments. Affirmed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Henderson, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-1482, Categories: construction, environment
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Rearden approved a consent decree between the federal government and a construction company that was found to have violated the Toxic Substances Control Act via its violation of certification and training requirements, poor recordkeeping practices, and its use of lead and failure to warn about toxic materials. The company could not pay the full civil penalty, so the government has agreed to a $606,000 settlement.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Rearden, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv7838, NOS: Environmental Matters - Other Suits, Categories: construction, environment, Settlements
J. Collins finds that the superior court properly denied the property developer’s request for a writ of mandate challenging Los Angeles’ denial of its request for a zoning change to comply with standards involving construction of a housing subdivision in a high wildfire hazard area. Though specific zones are not expressly listed in the general plan, they are incorporated by reference because the general plan allows all zones, even those that are “more restrictive” than those listed. A rezoning exemption cited by the developer does not apply. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Collins, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: B314750, Categories: construction, environment, Zoning
J. Love finds that the trial court properly granted the Port of New Orleans' exception of prematurity and dismissed a group's petition to stop the construction of an international shipping container project. In this case, no construction work has begun on the project, and the project has not undergone the permitting process to receive authorization to begin construction. Further, the trial court clearly stated that the group must exhaust all necessary administrative remedies until the project receives authority from the necessary administrative agencies. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Love, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 2023-CA-0323, Categories: Civil Procedure, construction, environment
[Consolidated.] J. Goldman finds the Water Quality Control Board properly imposed more than $6 million in penalties for the resort owner’s pollution of protected waterways during its construction of a residential resort. Separate petitions filed by the owner for administrative mandamus missed the filing deadline by three weeks. The state board’s declining to review the regional board’s decision is not subject to judicial review. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: A165227, Categories: construction, environment, Water
[Modified.] [Consolidated.] J. Tucher makes a couple of changes to footnotes and denies a petition for rehearing with no change in judgment. The trial court properly rejected Environmental Quality Act challenges to the long-range development plan for the University of California, San Francisco campus. The plan's environmental impact report adequately considered alternative development plans and the actions needed to mitigate wind impacts. The report should have considered public transit impacts, but the omission was not prejudicial because the report provides enough information to inform the public about the project's likely adverse impacts. The school was not required to analyze visual impacts because the development is an infill site, nor was it required to adopt mitigation measures for historical buildings that will be repurposed. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: A166091, Categories: Administrative Law, construction, environment
J. Lie finds the trial court improperly granted the water district’s petition for a writ of mandate challenging the county’s approval of California-American Water Company’s application for a permit to construct the desalination plant and other facilities in an unincorporated part of Monterey County as part of its Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The county’s statement of overriding considerations justifying the project was supported by substantial evidence and any remaining deficiency in the statement as an informational document was not prejudicial. The water district does not dispute that the California Public Utilities Commission’s environmental impact report identified remedial mitigation measures, or that the county adopted them, and the water district has shown no basis for continuing concern with the project’s consistency with the policies. Reversed and remanded.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Lie, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: H049146, Categories: construction, environment, Water
[Consolidated.] J. Tucher holds that the trial court properly rejected Environmental Quality Act challenges to the long-range development plan for the University of California, San Francisco campus. The plan's environmental impact report adequately considered alternative development plans and the actions needed to mitigate wind impacts. The report should have considered public transit impacts, but the omission was not prejudicial because the report provides enough information to inform the public about the project's likely adverse impacts. The school was not required to analyze visual impacts because the development is an infill site, nor was it required to adopt mitigation measures for historical buildings that will be repurposed. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Tucher, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: A166091, Categories: Administrative Law, construction, environment
J. Pritzker finds that the lower court properly annulled the city's decision approving plans to rebuild a downtown parcel because agencies failed to give the required "hard look" at whether digging up a remediated brownfield site would disturb contaminated soil capped by an asphalt parking lot. However, agencies were not required to take a "hard look" at the project's effect on the common loon, a bird species "of special concern" that sometimes occupies nearby Lake Champlain. Affirmed in part.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Pritzker, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 535097, Categories: construction, environment
J. Lindblom finds a lower court improperly ruled in favor of the housing and communities authority on an inspector's challenge to move forward on a proposed development. The housing and communities authority argued that the development would not be detrimental to visual aspects of the land. However, the property inspector sufficiently showed in court that the proposed development would "harm the character and appearance" of the site. Vacated.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Lindblom, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: CA-2022-1504, Categories: construction, environment
J. Block dismisses for lack of standing an action brought by three residents of East Hampton, New York, who sought to halt the construction of a wind farm off the coast of Long Island because the onshore trenching excavation work allegedly would exacerbate an existing PFAS contamination present in the surrounding soils. The defendants are not responsible for the onshore trenching work and are therefore are not the source of the residents’ alleged injury.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Block, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1305, NOS: Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision - Other Suits, Categories: construction, environment, Tort
J. Grasz finds a lower court properly dismissed Missouri's claims that a North Dakota water project violates the Water Supply Act. The state argued that the U.S. Department of the Interior violated the Act when it moved ahead with a water reclamation project in close proximity to the Missouri River without submitting an environmental impact statement. However, the Department sufficiently showed in court that the bureau's environmental assessment was acceptable, and that there was no need to explore alternatives. Affirmed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Grasz, Filed On: July 10, 2023, Case #: 21-3408, Categories: construction, environment
J. Summerhays denies summary judgment to the so-called “White Hat plaintiffs,” environmentalists and other activists protesting a controversial pipeline project on a Louisiana bayou. The court rejects their arguments that a “critical infrastructure” law, amended by oil lobbyists after their protest to provide prison time for trespassing on property marked for pipeline construction, is unconstitutional. The law expressly excludes protected First Amendment expressive conduct from the statute’s prohibitions. To the extent that they seek a declaration that the law is unconstitutional as applied to future anticipated protests of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline, “the White Hat plaintiffs lack a constitutionally protected right to protest on private property.” Violators of the amended trespassing law face up to five years in prison and $1,000 in fines.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Summerhays, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 6:20-cv-00983, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: Constitution, construction, environment