Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 2, 1994No. 92-1639Published

1Dissent

*340Justice Stevens, with whom Justice O’Connor joins,

dissenting.

The statutory provision in question is a 1984 amendment entitled “Clarification of Household Waste Exclusion.”1 To understand that clarification, we must first examine the “waste exclusion” that the amendment clarified and, more particularly, the ambiguity that needed clarification. I therefore begin with a discussion of the relevant pre-1984 law. I then examine the text of the statute as amended and explain why the apparent tension between the broad definition of the term “hazardous waste generation” in the 1976 Act and the more…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
  2. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. The City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  3. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. And Citizens for a Better Environment v. City of Chicago and Mayor Richard M. DaleyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  4. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc., Westchester Resco Company, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API