International Paper Co. v. Ouellette
case brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
479 U.S. 481 (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Certiorari was granted
to review a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which denied a motion to dismiss brought by
petitioner paper mill operator and held that an action by
respondents, Vermont lakeside property owners, to redress interstate
water pollution could be maintained under the continuing nuisance law
of the state in which the injury occurred.
FACTS: The property owners filed suit under Vermont state law against the paper mill operator for creating a continuing nuisance caused by pollutants discharged into the lake. The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.S. § 1251 et seq., established a federal permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants. Under the CWA, a regulatory partnership was created between the federal government and the state that was the source of the pollutant. Reversing the lower court's finding that Vermont law governed the suit, the Court found that the CWA precluded the Court from applying Vermont law against the paper mill operator. Because bringing suit under Vermont law as the affected state would have disrupted the balance of interests established under the CWA, the Court held that Vermont law was inapplicable to the paper mill operator because the point source of the pollution was New York. While reversing the application of Vermont law, the Court affirmed the denial of the paper mill operator's motion to dismiss, noting that the CWA did not prohibit the property owners from bringing a state nuisance claim under the law of the polluting source state.
FACTS: The property owners filed suit under Vermont state law against the paper mill operator for creating a continuing nuisance caused by pollutants discharged into the lake. The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.S. § 1251 et seq., established a federal permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants. Under the CWA, a regulatory partnership was created between the federal government and the state that was the source of the pollutant. Reversing the lower court's finding that Vermont law governed the suit, the Court found that the CWA precluded the Court from applying Vermont law against the paper mill operator. Because bringing suit under Vermont law as the affected state would have disrupted the balance of interests established under the CWA, the Court held that Vermont law was inapplicable to the paper mill operator because the point source of the pollution was New York. While reversing the application of Vermont law, the Court affirmed the denial of the paper mill operator's motion to dismiss, noting that the CWA did not prohibit the property owners from bringing a state nuisance claim under the law of the polluting source state.
CONCLUSION: The Court reversed the part
of the judgment that was based on application of the law of the
affected state and affirmed the part of the judgment denying the
paper mill operator's motion to dismiss. The Court remanded the case
for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment