Norvergence Judgment: List of Environmental Lawsuits and their Impacts
Norvergence Judgment: American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut
Norvergence Judgment: Eight states of the US, the City of New York, and three land trusts, independently sued electric corporations that operate nonrenewable energy (fossil-fuel) -driven power plants in twenty states. The offended parties looked to cap-and-abate the defendants’ GHG discharges under public nuisance law because of contributions to climate change or global warming. They asserted that the defendants are the five biggest producers of GHGs in the United States, transmitting 650 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. The offended parties further said that by adding to a climate change or global warming the defendants are breaching the law of interstate nuisance.
Norvergence Judgment: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dissolved the two groups of offended parties’ interstate nuisance claims as non-justiciable under the political question doctrine, and the offended parties claimed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cleared and remanded. The Second Circuit held that the claims were not prohibited by the political question doctrine, and the offended parties had alleged Article III standing. Certiorari was conceded by the United States Supreme Court.
Major environmental lawsuits and their judgments
Norvergence Judgment: Dolan v. City of Tigard
Norvergence Judgment: Petitioner Dolan, proprietor, and administrator of A-Boy Plumbing and Electrical Supply store in the city of Tigard, Oregon, applied for a grant to widen the store and clear the parking lot of her store. The city planning commission allowed contingent endorsement, subject to Dolan devoting area to an open scenic route along a contiguous brook, and building up a pedestrian and bike pathway to diminish traffic clog.
Norvergence Judgment: The decision was engaged in the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), claiming that the land commitment prerequisites were not identified with the proposed development, and consequently comprised an uncompensated taking of her property, which is denied by the Fifth Amendment.
Norvergence Judgment: LUBA found a sensible connection between the turn of events and the two states of the change, as the bigger structure and cleared part would expand overflow into the brook, and the effect of expanded traffic supported the necessity for a pathway. The decision affirmed by the Oregon State Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court.
Norvergence Judgment: Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria
Norvergence Judgment: Yorta Yorta v Victoria was a local title guarantee by the Yorta Yorta, Aboriginal Australian individuals of north-central Victoria. The case was demolished by Justice Olney of the Federal Court of Australia in 1998. Claims to the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia in 2001 and the High Court of Australia in 2002 were demolished too.
The assurance by Justice Olney in 1998 decided that the ‘tide of history’ had ‘washed away’ any genuine affirmation of customary laws and any genuine recognition of conventional traditions by the applicants.
Norvergence Judgment: An appeal was made to the full bench of the Federal Court because “the preliminary appointed authority mistakenly embraced a ‘solidified in time’ approach” and “neglected to give adequate acknowledgment to the limit of conventional laws and customs to adjust to changed conditions”. The Appeal was dismissed in a dominant part 2 to 1 decision.