Legal Opinion
Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 3, 2011No. 10-2591PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Raritan Baykeeper and the Edison Wetlands Association (collectively, “Raritan Baykeeper”) brought this suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) to bring about the remediation of contaminated sediments in the Raritan River. The District Court, citing the involvement and expertise of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, dismissed the action on abstention grounds. We conclude that this case does not call for abstention, and we will vacate the judgment of the District Court.
I
The…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Reid v. Johnson & Johnson & McNeil Nutritionals, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Benham v. Ozark Materials River Rock, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- Yadkin Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2015
- Tri-Realty Co. v. Ursinus CollegeDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.