Norvergence Class Action: Different Environmental Lawsuits across the Globe

Norvergence class action presents a list of lawsuits where the environment is at risk because of the behavior or wrongdoing of some non-environmental entities.

Norvergence Class Action: List of Environmental Lawsuits

Our team has researched and shortlisted various environmental lawsuits. All of them deserve great importance and you must know about them:

Norvergence Class Action: Amchem Products Incorporated v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 SCR 897

Amchem Products Incorporated v. British Columbia

Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 is an important decision taken by the Supreme Court of Canada on forum non-conveniens. The Court toppled an anti-suit directive gave by the British Columbia Supreme Court against the courts in Texas on the premise that the British Columbia (BC) court was not a suitable forum for this case.

Various British Columbia residents started an activity against some US makers of asbestos in Texas. The Texas court acknowledged authority over the issue and heard the case. The makers applied to the BC Supreme Court to give an enemy of suit order, contending that the correct forum for the offended parties would be in BC and not in Texas.

List of NGOs situated in Northern Africa

Norvergence Class Action: Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health

This case held constitutional state laws requiring the involuntary quarantine of people to forestall the spread of ailment.

In contradict, Justice Henry Billings Brown, joined by John Marshall Harlan, concurred that while isolate laws were correct and important, Louisiana’s went past the extent of the state’s position over the interstate business, thus, damaging some treaties between the United States and different countries.

Norvergence Class Action: PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology

PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology

The case represented an application by the Jefferson County Public Utility District and Tacoma City Light in northwestern Washington to establish a hydropower office on the Dosewallips River.

The Washington State Department of Ecology gave accreditation to the task in 1986 that forced minimal water stream necessities to secure species of salmon and steelhead under the government Clean Water Act. Tacoma City Light contended that the dam venture would only need to follow the stream norms set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), who permit dams.

Environmental groups contended that the FERC was inhumane towards the safety of salmon and steelhead and requested that the state implement its minimum stream standards.

Norvergence Class Action: Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission

A group of residents, the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, composed and started lawful activity after the Federal Power Commission affirmed plans for Consolidated Edison to develop a power plant on Storm King Mountain, New York.

Circuit Judge Paul R. Hays, in the court’s decision for Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, said: In order to ensure that the Federal Power Commission will adequately protect the public interest in the aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development, those who by their activities and conduct have exhibited a special interest in such areas must be held to be included in the class of ‘aggrieved’ parties under s. 313 (b).

We hold that the Federal Power Act gives petitioners a legal right to protect their special interests.

Read Blogs on Climate Change