From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Sierra Club, Inc. v. Electronic Controls Design, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
909 F.2d 1350 (1990)
Facts
In 1987, The Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club) (plaintiff) filed a civil suit against Electronic Controls Design (ECD) (defendant). The Sierra Club alleged that ECD violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by discharging pollutants from its manufacturing plant into the Molalla River in violation of the terms of ECD’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 1988, the parties filed a stipulation for the entry of a consent judgment. In the proposed judgment, ECD agreed to comply with the NPDES permit, pay $45,000 to various private environmental organizations for their effort to protect water quality in Oregon, and pay $5,000 to the Sierra Club for attorney and expert-witness fees. ECD did not admit to any violation of the consent decree. The United States filed an objection to the proposed judgment, arguing that the CWA authorizes the imposition of civil penalties only if paid to the United States treasury, and thus the proposed judgment was illegal because there was no requirement for the ECD to make payments to the treasury. The district court agreed with the United States and concluded the payments under the proposed consent judgment were civil penalties and the district court, therefore, refused to enter the order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goodwin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
