Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that permit shield language ambiguous with respect to scope of coverage
• concluding that permit shield language ambiguous with respect to scope of coverage
• noting that there is “no principled reason why water itself, which is conceded to be a chemical, would not be considered a ‘pollutant’ under ... the Act”
• holding private groups could not bring citizens suit action to stop discharge of pollutants not listed in valid permit issued pursuant to CWA, because discharge of unlisted pollutants was not unlawful under CWA
• noting that the 6 Supreme Court found the purpose of the permit shield was to relieve permit holders from having 7 to litigate whether their permits are sufficiently strict
• rejecting a hyperbolic interpretation that would require explicit limits on all chemicals, including water

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).