Conservation Law Foundation v. Hannaford Bros.

Second Circuit

Conservation Law Foundation v. Hannaford Bros.

139 F. App'x 338

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-3398

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 139 F. App'x 338 (Conservation Law Foundation v. Hannaford Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conservation Law Foundation v. Hannaford Bros., 139 F. App'x 338 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”) appeals from the May 14, 2004 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, C.J.) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the § 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Conservation Law Found, v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 327 F.Supp.2d 325 (D.Vt.2004). CLF claims that defendants’ storm-water discharge violates the CWA because defendants lack a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit under § 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, and that defendants are not otherwise in compliance with Section 301(a). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Conservation Law Foundation (“CLF”) appeals from the May 14, 2004 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, C.J.) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the § 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Conservation Law Found, v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 327 F.Supp.2d 325 (D.Vt.2004). CLF claims that defendants’ storm-water discharge violates the CWA because defendants lack a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit under § 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, and that defendants are not otherwise in compliance with Section 301(a). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conservation-law-foundation-v-hannaford-bros-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack