Weaver's Cove Energy, LLC v. Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council

589 F.3d 458 (2009)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
589 F.3d 458 (2009)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

In 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the commission) approved, subject to a few conditions, Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC’s (plaintiff) application to build a liquified natural gas terminal. Among the conditions was that the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (the council) (defendant) review the project to ensure that the project was consistent with the state’s coastal management plan. The council’s review was mandated by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (the act). Another condition was that Weaver obtain any licenses required by the state. The state plan required Weaver to obtain a Category B Assent permit because the construction involved dredging activities. After Weaver submitted to the council its application for a certificate of consistency and for its permit, the council notified Weaver that the applications were incomplete pursuant to § 300.9(c) of the state plan, which required a letter of acceptance from an approved upland site for the disposal of dredged materials. In response, Weaver claimed that § 300.9(c) did not require a letter of acceptance from an approved upland site because dredged material was to be disposed of in Massachusetts rather than Rhode Island. The matter was never resolved, and the state did not issue any decisions regarding the applications. One year after Weaver submitted its applications, Weaver sought a declaration from multiple federal agencies that the state’s concurrence was presumed because the state exceeded its six-month review period authorized by the act. The agencies refused to accept jurisdiction. Weaver filed an action in federal district court seeking a declaration that the council’s concurrence was presumed, and that the Category B Assent permit requirement was preempted by federal law. The council argued that the six-month period was tolled. The district court granted summary judgment in Weaver’s favor. The matter was appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership