Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Mirant Lovett, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, where terms of a DEC Consent Order only addressed permit violations that occurred in 2004, and “neither purported to modify the SPDES Permit, nor could validly have done so,” citizen suit seeking to enforce permit for years after 2004 could not be precluded
• no likelihood of recurrence where defendant “produced undisputed evidence that the generating station has been shut down and demolished”
• “[T]he Court takes judicial notice of the 2004 Consent Order, as it is a matter of public record and acknowledged by both sides.”
• “[T]he Court is considering the 2004 Consent Order not for the truth of the assertions therein, but only for the fact that these assertions were made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).