Environmental Law, Briefings - Case Study Example

ach exemption were made, it was found that it failed to comprise of the consequences of the measurements; moving on it was found that the court could not review the specific legal conclusion and its reasonableness until and unless the EPA discussed the estimate of assimilative-capacity loss and went to clarify why it thought of them as insignificant; Further the approval of EPA of Kentucky's categorization of certain waters as appropriate for Tier I rather than Tier II protection was not arbitrary, contrary to law and capricious.

Thus the case was remanded to the EPA and it was allowed to take into account of and then properly address the paucity in consideration the exceptions known as de minimis. The case involved a ruling under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and there wee many defendants and plaintiffs. The case concerned the use of genetically modified crops which was a controversial practice and to be precise it was the use of hebicide resistance alfalfa which was produce by Monsanto.The facts concerned Monsanto Company which had been involved in large scale production of chemical products including the herbicides and pesticides.

It developed a new genetically modified alfalfa in 1990s which was approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in 2005. This is an appeal for injunction which pending the environmental impact statement(EIS) was sought by the plaintiffs Geertson Seed Farms and Trask Family Seeds (conventional alfalfa-seed farms) and environmental groups who argue that such cross-pollination may cause conventional alfafa to finish. Monsanto and its licensee have been on the side of the governments and acted as the defendants.

The Court of Appeal cited the decision of injunction which had been given by the district court and it was stated that subject to the pending EIS assessment and the deregulation decision, the injunction would be upheld. Despite the fact that there was no sufficient evidentiary hearing which was present due to the fact that the district court had performed the traditional test of balancing, so the injunction would be acted upon till the completion the analysis of the APHIS. It needs to be pointed out that the Court clearly illustrated that there was no matter of law which was involved.Wong v. Bush, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals No.

07-16799The plaintiff in this case were those who had taken active part in the protest which had taken place on August 26 and 27, 2007, which opposed the Hawaii Super ferry's(HSF) operation to the Nawiliwili Harbor in Kauai, Hawaii, by saying that it was illegal. The Appellants went on to appeal from the district court which denied them the motion for declaratory relief, restraining order for provisional period, a preliminary injunction and a permanent