Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
906 F.2d 934 (1990)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was a federal law that regulated discharges of pollutants into the nation’s waters. Discharges were only allowed under specified conditions pursuant to permits issued by federal or state-approved authorities. The CWA could be enforced by governmental authorities as well as private citizens, and in response to an enforcement action, a court could order injunctive relief and civil penalties. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (Texaco) (defendant) had a permit allowing the discharge of certain quantities of industrial waste into the Delaware River. Texaco was required to monitor and report on its discharges. Between 1983 and 1987, Texaco allegedly violated its permit over 300 times through excessive discharges. In 1988, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (plaintiff) sued Texaco for violating the CWA. Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the NRDC filed a motion for summary judgment as to Texaco’s liability. The trial court granted the NRDC’s motion, finding that there were ongoing permit violations at the time the complaint was filed. Without requiring the NRDC to prove irreparable harm or conducting any balancing test, the court issued an injunction ordering Texaco to comply with its new permit. Texaco appealed, arguing that the court did not apply the correct standard in issuing the injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cowen, 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.
