Show simple item record

Environmental Law

dc.contributor.authorAnderson-Watts, Rachael
dc.contributor.authorDixit, Naeha
dc.contributor.authorDunsky, Christopher J.
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-22T21:58:00Z
dc.date.available2018-05-22T21:58:00Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citation55 Wayne Law Review 313 (2009)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/8857
dc.descriptionarticle published in law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractThe decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals during the Survey period, May 23, 2007 to July 30, 2008, did not dramatically change the course of environmental law in Michigan, nor did they contain any major surprises. The state Supreme Court's decision in Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestl Waters North America, Inc. is the most significant decision in the Survey period because it held that plaintiffs in Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) cases must now satisfy federal standing requirements. Although the Nestl9 decision may make it more difficult for ordinary citizens to use MEPA to protect the environment in Michigan courts, it will have no effect on their ability to participate in the administrative process, which is usually a more productive and less expensive venue for citizen participation in environmental decision making. A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter v. Department of Environmental Quality, is likely to facilitate citizen participation in the administrative process of issuing wastewater permits to concentrated animal feeding operations. Sierra Club and Nestle illustrate that environmental practitioners can expect to spend more of their time in practice before agencies and less time before courts. Other decisions of Michigan courts in the past year confirm that courts generally have little sympathy for defendants in environmental remediation enforcement cases. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a criminal provision in Michigan's scrap tire disposal law imposes strict liability in People v. Schumacher. The court of appeals also upheld substantial penalties in a site remediation case in Department of Environmental Quality v. Bulk Petroleum Corp.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (29 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherWayne Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectMichigan Environmental Protection Acten_US
dc.subjectwater conservationen_US
dc.subject.lcshEnvironmental lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshLawen_US
dc.titleEnvironmental Lawen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record