Court narrows law environmental protection law
Environmental
[##_1L|1051337674.jpg|width="130" height="130" alt=""|_##]The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday put limits on a long-standing state law that allows Michigan citizens to sue over drilling, dredging and development they think would hurt the state's environment. The ruling came in a case involving an international corporation's right to take groundwater for its Ice Mountain bottling plant in Mecosta County. Local residents had sued Greenwich, Conn.-based Nestle Waters North America and its bottled water operation in 2001 over potential damages to nearby waterways.
In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Court of Appeals decisions that said the residents had the legal standing to sue the company over how its water withdrawals might affect the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake.
But it disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the residents also had the legal standing to sue over a nearby lake -- Osprey Lake Impoundment -- and three wetlands, saying residents didn't prove they used those areas.
Justice Marilyn Kelly criticized the majority's decision, writing in her dissent that "it extinguishes a valid cause of action for no reason other than its belief that the cause of action granted by the Legislature is too broad."
A Nestle spokeswoman said the court simply was being consistent with an earlier ruling that limited the law's scope.
But David Holtz, director of Clean Water Action Michigan, said the court's ruling makes it even more important to pass legislation protecting Michigan's waters. A package of bills was introduced this week in the state House to strengthen a permit system for water withdrawals.
Related listings
-
US court suspends Shell Beaufort Sea oil drilling
Environmental 07/20/2007U.S. federal appeals court has ordered Royal Dutch Shell Plc to suspend drilling operations on offshore oil blocks in the Beaufort Sea off the north coast of Alaska pending a legal challenge being brought by environmental activists and Alaska Native ...
-
U.S. adopts limits on clean water law enforcement
Environmental 06/07/2007[##_1L|1106075551.jpg|width="140" height="135" alt=""|_##]The landmark U.S. law to fight water pollution will now apply only to bodies of water large enough for boats to use, and their adjacent wetlands, and will not automatically protect streams, th...
-
Supreme Court may Decide Contamination Case
Environmental 06/06/2007A high-stakes legal battle over a century of smelter contamination dumped into the Columbia River by a Canadian mining and smelting giant may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.The court issued an order today inviting the U.S. Solicitor General – t...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.