David R. Hansen

Name: Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court
Author: David R. Hansen

Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by David R. Hansen. It explores elements such as enforcement, Harmon and hazardous waste program.

Quotes from Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court (David R. Hansen)

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ Contrary to the EPA's assertions, the statute specifically provides that a " [s] tate is authorized to carry out [its hazardous waste program] in lieu of the Federal program . . . and to issue and enforce permits." 42 U.S.C. § 6926 ( b) . Issuance and enforcement are two of the functions authorized as part of the state's hazardous waste enforcement program under the RCRA. Nothing in the statute suggests that the "same force and effect" language is limited to the issuance of permits but not their enforcement. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ In Montana, the Supreme Court held that "one who prosecutes or defends a suit in the name of another to establish and protect his own right is as much bound as he would be if he had been a party to the record." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ In both the state court action and the EPA administrative enforcement action, the parties sought to enforce a hazardous waste program pursuant to the RCRA. In both the state action and the agency action, the complaints named Harmon as the defendant. In addition, both actions involved the enforcement of regulations based upon identical facts and legal principles. [p903] The only dispute is whether the parties are identical.
A party is identical when it is the same party that litigated a prior suit or when a new party is in privity with a party that litigated a prior suit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ In this case, we must determine whether Missouri law would give res judicata effect to the consent decree entered between Harmon and the MDNR in Missouri state court.
In Missouri, res judicata requires " (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ The House Report also states that the EPA, "after giving the appropriate notice to a state that is authorized to implement the state hazardous waste program, that violations of this Act are occurring and the state [is] failing to take action against such violations, is authorized to take appropriate action against those persons in such state not in compliance with the hazardous waste title." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ B. Res Judicata As an alternative basis to support its grant of summary judgment, the district court concluded that principles of res judicata also bar the EPA's enforcement action by reason of the Missouri state court consent decree. The EPA argues that the state court judgment has no effect on its enforcement action against Harmon because the two actions lack the elements essential for a finding of res judicata. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David R. Hansen, Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court

“ Wyckoff did not involve overfiling and competing enforcement actions.↑ Montana involved principles of collateral estoppel as opposed to res judicata. 440 U.S. at 154. We do not believe such a distinction is relevant in the context of this case. ”

David R. Hansen

Summary

Quotes from Harmon Industries v. Browner — Opinion of the Court (David R. Hansen)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature