Environmental Defense Fund v. Lamphier
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
714 F.2d 331 (1983)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
James Lamphier and his wife (defendants) owned a farm in Virginia. Beginning in 1979, state authorities discovered that Lamphier was disposing of hazardous wastes on his farm as a business. For example, Lamphier had buried drums of solvents on the property, which, when tested, showed a high degree of flammability. The state authorities issued remedial orders. In 1980, federal authorities began investigating whether Lamphier was complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Lamphier had not obtained a permit under the RCRA to operate a hazardous-waste-disposal site. In 1981, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) (plaintiffs), which were private entities, sued Lamphier under the citizen-suit provision of the RCRA, alleging violations of the law and seeking civil penalties. The state (plaintiff) intervened and asserted additional claims. During trial proceedings, the EDF and the CBF agreed not to seek civil penalties and to seek only injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees. The trial court found that Lamphier had created a common-law nuisance and had violated the RCRA. The court then issued an injunction ordering Lamphier to comply with applicable hazardous-waste regulations and to provide governmental authorities with access to the farm for purposes of monitoring compliance. Lamphier appealed, arguing that the district court was not authorized to issue an injunction and that there had been no showing of irreparable harm to support the issuance of an injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ervin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.