By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2012
Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Defendants’ failure to control erosion on their development project deposited sediment only on plaintiffs’ land; no body of water was involved. Therefore, plaintiffs were limited to common-law remedies; they could not make out a claim under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 23,2012
Shenandoah Valley Network v. Capka, Adm’r The 4th Circuit dismisses an appeal by environmental and preservation organizations that challenge federal and state agencies’ planned improvements to Virginia’s Interstate 81 corridor under a tiered review p
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 28,2011
North Carolina Wildlife Federation v. North Carolina Department of Transportation Even though defendants analyzed the impact of highway-building and no-build scenarios using socioeconomic data that already contemplated building the highway, defendants took extensive steps to ensure that the data constituted an appropriate baseline for the no-build scenario. Multiple investigations by an engineering firm confirmed the propriety of the data and the accuracy of defendants’ analyses. Defendants’ use of and reliance on these data were reasonable and did not violate defendants’ obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 14,2011
Busik v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources The applicable regulations required the local permit officer (LPO) to include in the square-footage calculation not only the proposed house but also the proposed appurtenances. When the appurtenances’ area is added to the area of the house, the square footage exceeds 5000 square feet; therefore, the setback requirement is 120 feet from the vegetation line, rather than the 60 feet provided for in the permit issued by the LPO. The petitioner-neighbor’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 16,2011
Midgett v. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission Petitioners' proposed oceanfront residence would be 272 feet landward of the vegetation line, failing to meet the 420-foot erosion setback requirement. Petitioners failed to show that the variance they requested is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the rules, standards, or orders; would secure public safety and welfare; and would preserve substantial justice.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 27,2011
United States v. Freedman Farms, Inc. In unusual situations, Justice Scalia's definition of "waters of the United States," as set out in the plurality opinion of Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), would give the government authority over bodies of water that would not fall within Justice Kennedy's definition, set out in his concurring opinion. However, Justice Kennedy's definition generally would be less restrictive of government authority (i.e., "narrower" within the meaning of Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)).
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 18,2011
Rhodes v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0390, 17 pp.) (Keenan, J.) No. 10-1166, April 8, 2011; USDC at Parkersburg, W.Va. (Goodwin, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: In this case involving contamination of a public water supply in Parkersburg, W.Va., the 4th Circuit [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 2,2011
Precon Development Corp. Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0127, 30 pp.) (Duncan, J.) No. 09-2239, Jan. 25, 2011; USDC at Norfolk, Va. (Smith, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: A Chesapeake developer planning a 658-acre mixed use development in southeast Virginia wins this phase of its challenge to the Army Corps of [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: January 14,2011
Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0052, 27 pp.) (Keenan, J.) No. 06-1714, Jan. 5, 2010; USDC at Columbia, S.C. (Perry, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: The 4th Circuit says two environmental groups have standing to prosecute a citizen suit [...]
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 10,2010
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy Inc. v. Huffman. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-01-1078, 17 pp.) (Wilkinson, J.) No. 09-1474, Nov. 8, 2010; USDC at Clarksburg, W.Va. (Keeley, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: A West Virginia state environmental protection agency must obtain pollutant discharge permits under the Clean Water Act [...]
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.
Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.
