Hallstrom v. Tillamook County
United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 20 (1989)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Hallstrom (plaintiff) operated a dairy farm next to a landfill operated by Tillamook County (Tillamook) (defendant). Hallstrom believed that Tillamook’s landfill violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In April 1981, Hallstrom notified Tillamook of its intention to file suit under the act. In 1982, Hallstrom sued Tillamook in district court. On March 1, 1983, Tillamook moved for summary judgment on the ground that Hallstrom had failed to provide notice of Hallstrom’s intent to sue to relevant federal and state regulatory agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). On March 2, 1983, Hallstrom notified the agencies of the suit. The district court denied Tillamook’s motion, reasoning that the defect in notice was not jurisdictional, was curable, and had been cured. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that failure to comply with the notice provision deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
