Other Important Solid Waste Cases
NSWMA v. Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist. (Ohio 2009) (Ohio Supreme Court reversed appeals court decision that Ohio EPA was necessary party in challenge to waste district’s landfill rules).
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, No. 07-56564 (9th Cir. 2009) (ruling plaintiffs did not have prudential standing to challenge, on dormant Commerce Clause grounds, Kern County’s prohibition on the disposal of sludge originating outside the county, including outside California).
National Parks & Conservation Assoc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 05-56814 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding district court decision blocking a proposed landfill in southern California near Joshua Tree National Park).
Trans Rail America Inc. v. Enyeart (Ohio 2009) (Ohio Supreme Court ruled state agency can order local agency to review pending landfill application).
Town of New Hartford v. CRRA (Conn. 2009) (Connecticut Supreme Court affirms $36 million award to towns because state solid waste agency was unduly enriched by Enron-related settlement and refused to reduce tip fees at state disposal facilities).
Missouri v. St. Louis Cty., No. ED-91677 (MO. App. 2008) (Missouri appeals court ruled county does not have authority to ignore two year notice requirement before implementing a solid waste collection franchise).
Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle, No. 76954-1 (Wash. 2008) (Washington Supreme Court ruled Seattle laws authorizing selection of waste collectors does not violate state law or the U.S. Constitution).
Douglas Disposal, Inc. v. Wee Haul LLC, No. 44862 (Nev. 2007) (Nevada Supreme Court ruled a county exclusive franchise for construction and demolition waste is within county's Police Power and does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause).
New York Susquehanna & Western Ry. Corp. v. Jackson, 500 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007) (vacating district court decision that New Jersey's regulations governing rail transloading facilites are preempted by federal law).
New England Transrail, LLC., STB Finance Docket No. 34797 (July 10, 2007) (ruling certain activities at proposed Massachusetts transloading facility are subject to federal preemption, but shredding and use of conveyor belts are not).
Harper v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, No. 03-00516 (S.D. W. Va. April 11, 2006) (federal district court ruled West Virginia's certification requirement for haulers violates the Commerce Clause under the Pike balancing test; the state law does not provide any local benefits).
Fulton County v. City of Atlanta, No. 06-A-0049 (Ga. 2006) (Georgia Supreme Court ruled a state law prohibiting the movement of waste across state or county lines unless prior approval is received by the originating and destination counties for such waste violates the Commerce Clause).
National Solid Wastes Management Association - Petition for Declaratory Order, STB Finance Docket No. 34776 (March 10, 2006) (dismissing petition asking federal rail board to start proceeding involving transloading facility in New Jersey because site had closed making issue moot).
Berks County v. Department of Environmental Protection, No. 870 (Commonwealth Ct. Feb. 28, 2006) (state court upheld state agency's harms-benefit analysis for proposed expansion of Pioneer Crossing landfill, affirming most of the "benefits" that permit applicants typically set forth in their harms-benefits analysis).
Grassroots Recycling Network, Inc. v. EPA, No. 04-1196 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 18, 2005) (Dismissing challenge to EPA's RDD rules governing landfills on standing grounds; NSWMA filed an amicus brief in the case).
Eagle Environmental II v. Pennsylvania, J-89A-2004 (Pa. Oct. 27, 2005) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by narrow 4-3 margin, upholds state "harms-benefits test for landfill permit applications).
John C. Holland Enterprises, Inc. v. SPSA, No. 05-186 (Oct. 7, 2005) (Suffolk County court in Virginia ruled a regional solid waste agency is not liable for damages due to sovereign immunity).
Colonias Development Council v. Rhino Environmental Services, Inc. (N.M. July 18, 2005) (New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the state Environment Department did not consider testimony about the proposed landfill's adverse impact on the local community's quality of life and remanded permit application to the Department).
Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. Doherty, No. 03-3571 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2005) (New York City's moratorium on transfer station expansions and new transfer stations, predicated on local need, may violate Commerce Clause).
Pennsylvania Independent Waste Haulers Assoc. v. County of Northumberland, No. 02-01629 (Lycoming Cty., Feb. 7, 2005) (Pennsylvania court ruled that a Lycomoing County administrative fee of $2.00-3.00 per ton for solid waste disposed at Lycoming County's landfill violates state law).
James River Assoc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. CH03-1514 (Cir. Ct. of City of Richmond, Feb. 4, 2005) (Virginia state court ruled state regulation imposing 24-inch standing water test for testing whether barge containers used to ship solid waste is not consistent with state law requirement that such containers be leakproof. Decision also upheld state's $1.00 per ton fee for barged waste).
Harper v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 396 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. Jan 24, 2005) (Appeals court ruled a district court erred by abstaining in hauler's challenge to West Virginia's certificate regulations).
Public Citizen v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, No. 03-1165 (D.C. Cir. July 16, 2004) (appeals court ruled federal Hours of Service rules issued in April 2003 were arbitrary and capricious).
New Hampshire v. Goss, No. 2002-445 (N.H. Sept. 29, 2003) (court ruled resident had expectation of privacy in his trash under the NH Constitution, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to the contary in California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)).
Philadelphian Owners Assoc. v. City of Philadelphia (3rd Cir. Feb. 4, 2003) (appeals court upheld Philadelphia law that states Philly is not obligated to collect solid waste from buildings with more than six units, rejecting an Equal Protection Clause challenge).
A.G.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. Washington County, 281 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 2002) (The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a controversial district court ruling that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts certain local solid waste and recycling ordinances because they involve "property." The appeals court ruled the FAAAA does not prempt local regulation of the collection of mixed solid waste).
Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. v. City of Bel Aire (No. 02-1035) (D. Kan. March 4, 2002) (denying haulers' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Bel Aire from entering into exclusive contract for curbside collection of recyclable. The court found Bel Aire is acting as a market participant and that the local law does not substantially impair the haulers' existing contract rights).
NSWMA v. Bazzell (W.D. Wisc. Jan. 14, 2002) (dismissing industry challenge to Wisconsin's $3.00 per ton recycling surcharge. The court ruled the surcharge is a "tax" under the Federal Tax Injunction Act and therefore federal courts do not have jurisdiction over NSWMA's Commerce Clause challenge).