Jump to content

Talk:List of environmental lawsuits

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Finding more lawsuits

[edit]

As I mentioned in my first edit summary for this article, editors can continue the Wikipedia search for "_v._" from the 4000th article, where I left off searching. The string " v. " (with spaces) is more accurate but possibly ambiguous. Not every article listed in the search results is an article about a lawsuit (for example, some are about people who have "V." for a middle initial), and not every lawsuit is an environmental lawsuit. If the search is continued soon, I guess that the list of search results will probably not have changed much. Alternatively, a search can begin again at the beginning and lawsuits of various kinds can be sorted into their respective lists. I could continue the search myself, but I have other ideas to pursue. This might interest especially someone who specializes in environmental law, or at least law in general. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comment about annotation

[edit]

I have added the following text as a hidden comment on the article page.

In each annotation, the first part specifies the court where the lawsuit was decided, and the second part specifies the year of the decision. For additional lawsuits, please make annotations consistent with this pattern. One benefit of this consistency is that the list will be ready for possible conversion to a sortable wikitable format. The headings can be "Lawsuit", "Court of decision", and "Date of decision". A similar conversion was done for "List of environmental books".

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the list to a sortable wikitable format, and removed the hidden comment. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits without Wikipedia articles

[edit]

I found these lawsuits by searching through Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases. Information is available from the respective web pages. The first three-digit number in each web address (except the web address for Lacoste v. Department of Conservation of La., 1924) represents the volume number.

I found these lawsuits by searching through List of Supreme Court of Canada cases. Information is available from the respective web pages.

I invite Wikipedians to write articles about these lawsuits. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have removed the following lawsuits with red links.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many years back?

[edit]

how many years can you go back to filed a lawsuit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.110.12 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear. If you mean "How old can an environmental crime be and still be the subject of a current lawsuit?", I do not know the answer. I recommend that you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, but please make your question clearer. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I am correcting my punctuation, by adding a question mark and a quotation mark after lawsuit. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive?

[edit]

Currently, the list contains cases from disparate areas of law that have at most a very tangential relationship to environmental law. Honestly, I would move 80% of the cases from the first list to the second list, and remove most of the cases on the second list entirely.

For example: Dolan v. City of Tigard is currently in the first list, "environmental lawsuits." But the case is just a land use case. Land use is not the same thing as environmental law.

Example 2: Keeble v Hickeringill involves property rights to wild animals, as distinct from the conservation of wild animals. It doesn't belong on this list.

The current criteria for inclusion:

environmental lawsuit means "a lawsuit where the well-being of an environmental asset or the well-being of a set of environmental assets is in dispute". Also on this page, lawsuit with environmental relevance means "a lawsuit where a non-environmental entity or a set of non-environmental entities is in dispute, but whose outcome has relevance for an environmental asset or for a set of environmental assets".

I would change "environmental lawsuit" to "a lawsuit where a question of environmental law is in dispute" and "lawsuit with environmental relevance" to "a lawsuit having significant relevance for environmental assets or the field of environmental law."

LegalSkeptic 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comments and I am preparing my response, which I hope to have ready within 24 hours. Please wait.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited comments from 15 Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedian lawyers whose user pages indicate an interest in the environment.
-- Wavelength (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[As a convenient reference (to me and to anyone else interested), here are links to their respective talk pages: User talk:Bearian,
User talk:Cdogsimmons, User talk:CharacterZero, User talk:Clarkbhm, User talk:Doug, User talk:Franko velebitan, User talk:JKW111,
User talk:Jmbranum, User talk:KriZe, User talk:Omar1976, User talk:Oregon Bear, User talk:Sctechlaw, User talk:Shadebug,
User talk:Walshga, User talk:Youngtim74. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I was contacted by Wavelength. I generally take a broader view about these things to promote inclusion. For example, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife is most relevant to the procedural law of standing, but I would say it does belong on this list since the underlying substantive law is clearly environmental. That said, I agree with Legalskeptic's points that there should be a distinction between land use and property law, and environmental law. Although of course, land use and property are relevant to the environment, the problem is, you could stretch that to include every aspect of law: criminal, tort, etc. (civil procedure?). I would say that there should at least be an underlying substantive claim in each case that relies on a law concerning (1) pollution control and remediation, or (2) resource conservation and management (see Environmental law). Otherwise, the page loses its usefulness. I think that Dolan fits that description, but not Keeble. In Dolan, the land being taken by the city planning commission was for a public "greenway" in which the motivation was resource conservation. But in Keeble, the issue was who owned the ducks, not whether the ducks should been have protected against the hunters. No matter who won in that case, the outcome for the duck was going to be the same.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also contacted by Wavelength. I can't say i really have much specific environmental law expertise but it seems to me that if we have a page on Environmental Law then the first category should be cases which revolve around that. As such, Dolan would not be allowed in the first list since it appears, to me, to concern the processes which must be followed when allowing planning permission or not. Though the impact of the case is clearly environmental, the law itself is not. Keeble I'm more reluctant to have an opinion on as it requires a greater understanding of the meaning of Environmental Law than I would profess to have. On the one hand, it deals with the effects a person's actions may have on the environment, however it is only in relation to the environment as part of another's property and trade. Whether the distinction between something which affects wild animals and the conservation of animals is relevant is something else that is up for debate, though I would err on the side of it being an unimportant distinction to our purposes being that they are part of the environment, whether they are endangered/important or not. As such, I would suggest that both cases probably warrant inclusion in the second list and that its definition is fine as it stands but that the first list should concern itself with cases dealing directly with environmental law. --Shadebug (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. I like the phrase, per LegalSkeptic, "a lawsuit having significant relevance for environmental assets or the field of environmental law." That would include cases about standing and energy law. However, cases involving property rights to wild animals, and the like, do not belong on this list; otherwise, Pierson v. Post would be on the list, q.e.d.. All that being said, I have no particular expertise in environmental law, other than being a card-carrying lawyer and a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club. My expertise is more of the energy law and Superfund sides of these things. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for commenting, and if anyone else has a view on this, please contribute. It sounds like we might be able to come to a consensus of narrowing the criteria for the first category, "environmental lawsuits," a bit. Lujan is definitely what I would consider a core environmental law case, even though it was technically decided on a standing basis. I would not want a criteria so narrow that the standing cases (or APA/administrative law cases involving the environment like Chevron v. NRDC) would be outside it. Perhaps some sort of compromise language for inclusion in between my proposal and the current language is in order. Wavelength, I hope you didn't take my proposal personally. I know you spent a lot of time on this list, which is why I started a discussion before I was bold. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Legalskeptic, I did not take your proposal personally, but thank you for your concern. If some of the lawsuits now listed are removed, I propose that they be listed in one or more new articles, such as List of property lawsuits, List of land use lawsuits, or List of land use and property lawsuits. Then the different lists can be linked with each other. I have left messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment, inviting comments here. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say environmental lawsuits = lawsuits where an environmental issue is under dispute, != land law. There are tortious cases which would be covered, particularly under the EPA over here in lolbritland, but generally saying land = environmental is invalid. I have no particular opinion on splitting off more lists, since I don't like the idea of that sort of list generally; if it set caselaw or gained publicity, stick it in English property law or whatever. If not, it shouldn't be here. Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on the World Wide Web for one or more definitions of "environmental lawsuit" (besides the one which I composed), but so far without success. If and when some lawsuits are removed from one or both lists, please list them on this talk page (possibly in a new section) with the appropriate type(s) of lawsuit for each one. (Grouping them by type of lawsuit reduces the need to repeat the type[s] of lawsuit.) If there are enough, I am willing to start one or more new articles with a format similar to the ones used for this article. Wikipedia has Category:Law by issue and List of areas of law and Category:Case law by topic. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed suits

[edit]

As per Wavelength's suggestion, here is a list of removed suits that should be included in lists elsewhere.

Lawsuit(s) Environmental asset(s)
and subject(s) of lawsuit(s)		 Court(s) of decision(s) Year(s) of decision(s)
Corfield v. Coryell Fisheries: non-residents gathering oysters and clams 1823
Ecolab v. FMC Cleanliness: patents for biocides for uncooked beef and poultry United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009
Keeble v Hickeringill Wildlife: interference with duck hunting on adjacent land Queen's Bench 1707

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalskeptic (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country needed

[edit]

I am not a fan of these sort of list but if we are going to have it then a column for the actual country it relates to should be included. It is more important than the specific court in which it was held so that column could be replace with the country in question. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of environmental lawsuits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_environmental_lawsuits&oldid=1208232988"