Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
945 F.2d 150 (1991)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Nevada, Washington, and South Carolina were the only three states with sites to dispose of nuclear waste (sited states). The sited states had facilities at which low-level radioactive waste was buried in perpetuity. At one point, the sited states objected to handling nuclear waste transported from other states (non-sited states). In 1980, Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (the act) to motivate non-sited states to share the burden of nuclear-waste disposal. In 1985, Congress amended the act to add further incentives and penalties to encourage non-sited states to develop disposal capacities by December 31, 1992. While non-sited states were working on complying with the amended act, the sited states were required to accept nuclear waste from non-sited states. In 1990, the sited states concluded that Michigan was not complying with the act and declined to accept nuclear waste from Michigan. In the meantime, Michigan nuclear-waste generators had on-site temporary facilities at which nuclear waste could be safely stored. The Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. (the coalition) (plaintiff) sued relevant agencies of the sited states (the agencies) (defendants) in Michigan district court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to obtain access to the sited states’ disposal facilities. The agencies challenged the Michigan court’s personal jurisdiction. The court granted judgment in favor of the coalition and permanently enjoined the agencies from denying access to disposal facilities in the sited states. The agencies appealed and filed a motion to stay the district court’s judgment pending appeal in both the district court and the Sixth Circuit. The district court denied the agencies’ motion, and the Sixth Circuit had to decide whether to grant a stay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martin, 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.