Sisk's Admr. v. Sisk's Admr.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the balance of factors weighed against a stay because a stay would allow the defendants to continue committing the alleged environmental violations that put the plaintiffs' health and safety at risk
• explaining that to overcome a presumption of diligent prosecution, the plaintiff must show conduct that is “dilatory, collusive or otherwise in bad faith”—“[i]t is insufficient to merely show ‘that the agency’s prosecution strategy is less aggressive than [the plaintiff] would like’”
• disagreeing with Cape Fear and finding that CWA jurisdiction extends to pollution of groundwater hydrologically connected to surface water
• finding non-diligence where state failed to move suit forward through discovery or depositions and let case lie dormant for over a year; moreover, state ultimately moved to stay its own action
• “To overcome this presumption, the citizen-plaintiff can demonstrate a pattern of conduct in the state’s prosecution of the defendant that could be considered dilatory, collusive or otherwise in bad faith.”
• “The notice requirement provides the opportunity for the government to initiate its own enforcement action against the alleged violator and for the alleged violator ‘to bring itself into complete compliance with the Act,’ both obviating the need for a citizen suit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).