[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Michigan Supreme Court votes 4-3 to narrow environmental law used in water fight



That's interesting that the Supreme Court would say that, because they denied Tittabawassee floodplain residents the ability to sue Dow for medical monitoring based on the "potential" for future illnesses even though we have increased levels in our blood.  We actually had to have damages (illness or cancer) to sue, they said.
 
Kathy Henry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: E-M:/ Michigan Supreme Court votes 4-3 to narrow environmental law used in water fight

Was the 4-3 vote divided on party lines?  Need individual voting list.
 
 
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/UPDATE/707250434/1003/METRO

LANSING -- By a 4-3 vote, the Michigan Supreme Court today narrowed a landmark environmental protection law that allowed state residents to sue to block development projects they think would harm the environment.

The court said in its decision that local residents have the right to sue Nestle Waters North America and its bottled water operation over potential damages to the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake in Mecosta County, but don't have the legal standing to sue over a nearby lake and three wetlands because they don't use those areas.

The decision hinged in part on the state Supreme Court's 2004 ruling rejecting the idea that a 1970 state law allows literally anyone to sue to halt pollution or other environmental degradation.





Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.