Environmental Law Portal

Welcome to the Beveridge & Diamond Environmental Law Portal.

Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers in seven U.S. offices focus on environmental and natural resource law, litigation and dispute resolution. We help clients around the world resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues relating to their products, facilities, and operations. 

Subscribe for updates via:

Meet the Contributors

Topics

Recent Posts

Click here to learn more about us

Showing 8 posts by Dylan J. King.

Case Closed: Nonprofits Eligible for Brownfields Tax Credits for Pre-2006 Cleanups

Massachusetts’ top court has given finality to a 2017 ruling by the Massachusetts Appeals Court that nonprofits are eligible for transferrable brownfields tax credits for remediation conducted prior to 2006. By denying further appellate review on May 4, 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court let stand the Appeals Court’s ruling, leaving no further route for the Massachusetts Department of Revenue to avoid granting nonprofits these credits under these circumstances. Northeastern University et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 479 Mass. 1107 (2018). In response to our inquiry, the DOR has informed us that they will issue a Technical Information Release addressing this court decision and stated that its guidance on brownfields tax credits remains in effect except where inconsistent with the Court’s decision. Read More ›

Appeals Court Offers Path for Challenging ZBA’s Failure to Act

A constructive approval cannot be obtained where a zoning board of appeals secretary promptly returns an application and filing fee and says it does not have jurisdiction, according to the Massachusetts Appeals Court in its unpublished recent decision of Neli Ridge, LLC v. Town Clerk of Wilmington, 93 Mass.App.Ct. 1109 (2018). Read More ›

Vermont House of Representatives to Consider Pair of Sweeping Toxic Tort Liability Bills

On March 21, 2018, the Vermont Senate approved S.197, a bill that (1) establishes strict liability, jointly and severally, for any person who releases a toxic substance and (2) creates a private right of action for medical monitoring damages related to toxic substance exposure. The Vermont House Judiciary Committee split the bill in two after hearing extensive testimony. The strict liability provisions are now attached to an unrelated bill, S.123, while the medical monitoring provisions remain in S.197. Read More ›

Clean Air Act Preemption Claims Not Preempted in Diesel Cheat Device Class-Action

A Michigan district court judge determined that the Clean Air Act did not preclude plaintiffs from bringing 53 state law fraudulent concealment and consumer protection claims against General Motors LLC and its suppliers for developing and installing devices on GM diesel trucks to cheat emissions tests. Fenner v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 2018 WL 949856 (E.D. MI. February 20, 2018). Read More ›

Faulty Expert Testimony Leads to Dismissal of Benzene Exposure Claims

Illustrating the importance of expert testimony in toxic torts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently dismissed a plaintiff’s appeal after finding that the plaintiff’s expert witness (1) provided a flawed methodology for determining benzene caused the plaintiff’s leukemia and (2) failed to rule out idiopathic origins. Hall v. Conoco Inc., 886 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 2018). Read More ›

Standardizing Assessment of Natural Resource Damages: Massachusetts Is Taking the First Step

MassDEP is developing a standard methodology for assessing natural resource damages for small to medium oil spills to surface water that will be incorporated into forthcoming regulations, which will require persons responsible for these spills to pay the assessed natural resource damages, above and beyond cleaning up the spill.  MassDEP is expected to expand the standard assessment to include spills of hazardous materials and spills to groundwater.  MassDEP plans to pool these funds to improve watersheds that have been harmed by releases of oil or hazardous materials. Read More ›

“Frivolous” Town Complaint Results in Attorney’s Fees Award for Affordable Housing Developer

The Massachusetts Land Court’s recent award of attorney’s fees to an affordable housing developer serves as a warning to municipalities opposed to affordable housing projects under the Massachusetts affordable housing statute, M.G.L. c. 40B. In Town of Sudbury v. Bartlett, et al., Land Court Case No. 16 MISC 000734 (2017), the Town sought to block development of property that it had sold to the developer, arguing that the parcel was subject to a deed restriction. The Land Court rejected this argument and sided with the developer in a decision on cross-motion for summary judgment. The developer filed a subsequent motion to recover attorney’s fees under M.G.L. c. 231, § 6F. Read More ›

Supreme Judicial Court Sets Limitation on Chapter 40B’s Broad Grant of Authority to Local Zoning Boards

In a rare limitation on the broad scope of Massachusetts’ affordable housing law, the state’s top court ruled that amendments by a local board to municipally owned deed restrictions are not covered by the law. Read More ›