Logourl black

Scott v. City of Hammond, Indiana

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
741 F.2d 992 (7th Cir. 1984)


Facts

Section 505(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2), provides for citizen suits against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) where there is a “failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator.” William J. Scott (plaintiff) filed a citizen’s suit against the EPA. Scott’s suit involved two claims: (1) the EPA failed to ensure that water quality standards protect the public health and welfare because there are no water quality criteria for hazardous viruses and there is an inadequate standard for hazardous pathogenic bacteria; and (2) the EPA failed to prescribe a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for discharge of pollutants into Lake Michigan. Establishing a TMDL requires cooperation between federal and state governments. Each state is to submit TMDLs for those waters within its boundaries where water quality standards will not be achieved by application of technology-based limitations. Illinois and Indiana had to submit TMDLs within 180 days of December 28, 1978. Neither did so. The district court dismissed all of Scott’s claims and he appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Here's why 81,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 11,364 briefs - keyed to 151 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now