Binding - Precedent that must be followed. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears.
Persuasive / Non-Binding - Precedent that is not mandatory for the court to follow but is helpful or relevant. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts or by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions.
Federal Case Law
Fla. Wildlife Fed'n Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
In this case, Environmental organizations brought action against Army Corps of Engineers, alleging decisions about when and how to release water from locks along Florida's cross-state water channel violated the Clean Water Act and Florida law. The Corps invoked sovereign immunity and moved to dismiss action. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed action. Organizations and state agencies appealed. However, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Conservationists' action.
Suncoast Waterkeeper v. City of Gulfport
On January 4, 2017, Plaintiffs, Suncoast Waterkeeper (“SCWK”), Our Children's Earth Foundation (“OCEF”), and Ecological Rights Foundation (“ERF”), filed this action against Defendant, the City of Gulfport, Florida, under the citizen-suit enforcement provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”). (Doc 1-2 at 1). Plaintiffs allege Defendant has violated the CWA by (1) discharging pollutants into waters of the United States without National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit authorization and (2) violating the terms of its NPDES Permit, No. FLS000005-003, through these discharges.
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Plaintiffs claim that the Corps likely causes or contributes to the growth of red algae, also known as red tide, and blue-green algae by releasing freshwater from Lake Okeechobee. Plaintiffs argue harm was caused to endangered species such as the West Indian Manatee. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants acted contrary to the ESA by failing to engage in sufficient consultation regarding the effects of harmful algae blooms on endangered species.
Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement Dist. v. United States EPA
The discharges were into the headwaters of a polluted river that flowed into other rivers and emptied into Narragansett Bay. Two states had strong interests in the health of these waters and generally supported the EPA's decisions during the permitting process. The district, supported by its member towns, had an interest in avoiding compliance costs associated with the permit and challenged the effluent limitations as premature and unsupported by the scientific record. Inter alia, the court held that there was no error in the EPA's final permit decision. The EPA took the complexity of the watershed into account and concluded, based on the extensive scientific record before it, that even with the district's completed computer model, there was no reasonable likelihood that a less stringent limit would meet state water quality standards. The EPA also properly conducted a risk analysis of the consequences of waiting for a more complete model before making its decision. Thus, the EPA did not act arbitrarily in deciding to issue the permit when it did. The nitrogen limit the EPA chose was justified by the record and within the zone of reasonableness. The court lifted the stay and denied the petitions.
Soap & Detergent Asso. v. Clark
Plaintiffs brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment that county ordinance prohibiting the sale or use of detergents containing phosphorus after January 1, 1972, and requiring that detergents sold in the county after such date be labeled to list all ingredients contained therein and to express percentages of each ingredient by weight was unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. On the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance, the District Court, Cabot, J., held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction, in view of failure to demonstrate that there was a substantial likelihood that ordinance would be declared unconstitutional. Application denied.
Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. State Dep't of Envtl. Regulation
Appellant sued state Department of Environmental Regulation and water management district alleging pollution of a canal and surrounding waters The court held that the statute was substantive, not procedural, and that it created a new cause of action permitting citizens new rights to sue to protect their rights to a clean environment. The statute ensured that the minimum requirements of standing would be met. The court found the legislature had not manifested an intent that the special injury rule apply to suits brought under the Environmental Protection Act. It held that appellant federation was a citizen within the meaning of the statute and had the power to sue. Thus, The court reversed the decision and remanded the matter as it found the statute to be substantive, not procedural and that it provided an entirely new cause of action, allowing citizens to protect their rights to a clean environment.
