Alberta Wilderness Ass’n v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd.  3 FC 425
April 8, 1999
A coalition of conservation organizations challenged a ministry decision allowing a coal mine to be constructed just outside the boundary of a national park. One of the questions the court considered was whether the environmental assessment prepared prior to the decision adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the mine -- including cumulative impacts.
European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain, ECJ C-404/09 (2011) (European Court of Justice)
November 24, 2011
In Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, governmental and nongovernmental entities challenged a rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which set fuel economy standards, by asserting that the EA did not adequately assess the cumulative impact of the proposed standards on GHG emissions. 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007). The U.S.
Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016).
Zero Zone, Inc. (Zero Zone), a small business specializing in commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE), and others, petitioned for review of rules published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aimed at improving energy efficiency in manufacturing.
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and others, Case no. 65662/16 (2017)
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg sought judicial review of a decision by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) granting an environmental authorization for a coal-fired power plant and of decision by the Minister of Environmental Affairs not to withdraw the authorization as part of an appeal of the authorization.
A mining company (Mina Invierno) proposed a project to incorporate blasting methods at an existing permitted open pit coal mine in southern Chile. Citizens and civil society organizations properly presented petitions for the provision of citizen participation procedures during the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process required for this proposed complementary project, but those petitions were denied. The denial of those petitions was unsuccessfully appealed at the administrative level and the proposed project to incorporate blasting was approved, so a constitutional lawsuit (re
Persons who claimed to have contracted pneumoconiosis due to having worked in dusty coal mines in the Chikuho region or their successors brought this case to seek damages from the government under Article 1, para.
REsp 647.493/SC [MPF v. Brazil and mining companies] (22 May 2007):