Also known as: toxic wastes · hazardous waste
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Hazardous material generated by industrial or commercial activity that contains toxic substances capable of causing injury to human health or damage to the environment. Improper handling or disposal creates risks of contamination to soil, water, and air. Liability and regulatory rules turn on the material's origin, transport, and potential for harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Titan Industries ships toxic waste from its out-of-state plant to a disposal facility in State X. State X charges Titan a surcharge twice as high as the fee imposed on in-state generators for identical waste. Titan challenges the surcharge as unconstitutional. The court holds the differential invalid because it discriminates against interstate commerce on the basis of waste origin.
Tobias Thomas, an environmental advocate, sues federal agencies that approved projects allowing toxic waste disposal near overseas habitats. Thomas has never visited the sites but alleges harm to his professional interest in species protection. The court dismisses for lack of concrete injury because the alleged harm is too attenuated from Thomas's own activities.
Theresa Tucker and Friends of the Earth sue Laidlaw for repeated violations of its permit to discharge toxic waste into a river. The group members live nearby and allege reduced recreational use because of the pollution. The court finds standing because the credible threat of future violations causes ongoing injury redressable by civil penalties.
TechVista Solutions must deliver its toxic waste to a county facility under a local ordinance that bars export to out-of-county sites. The company argues the rule burdens interstate commerce. The court upholds the ordinance because it treats all waste the same regardless of origin and advances legitimate local health interests.
Trinity Pharmaceuticals operates a site where toxic waste burial has caused surface subsidence damaging nearby homes. State law requires backfilling to prevent further movement. The company claims the requirement takes its property. The court rejects the claim because the regulation prevents a nuisance-like harm rather than appropriating the land.
Tyrone Tran owns homes in a neighborhood where a factory buried toxic waste. The city condemns the area for redevelopment and cleanup. Tran challenges the taking as lacking public use. The court upholds the condemnation because eliminating the health hazard and restoring the land serves a public purpose.
Probable cause exists when the totality of circumstances creates a fair probability that contraband will be found. Specific details about nighttime movements, chemical odors, and unusual unmarked barrels, corroborated by officers stopping the described truck with a covered load, satisfy the standard. The automobile exception then permits a warrantless search of the cargo area.
Supporting sources
…cannot seriously be contended that a litigant's failure to use the precise or exact site where animals are slaughtered or where toxic waste is dumped into a river means he or she cannot show injury. The Court also rejects respondents' claim of vocational or professional injury. The Court says that it is "beyond all reason"…
…stopping illegal activity or abating a public nuisance. See Nassr v. Commonwealth , 394 Mass. 767, 477 N. E. 2d 987 (1985) (hazardous waste
…V) (authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to decide whether a state or local statute that conflicts with the regulation of hazardous waste
…§ 7(c)]. ‘Burden of proof’ as that term is used in the APA means the burden of going forward, not the burden of persuasion”);
Yes. When independent conduct by separate parties produces a single indivisible injury, each defendant remains liable for the full amount of damages. The plaintiff may therefore sue both in one action and recover the entire loss from either or both without apportionment.
Supporting sources
A lawyer may seek relief when the client or cause is so repugnant that it is likely to impair the lawyer-client relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client effectively. Public campaigns against the company's conduct and a stated inability to advocate zealously because of personal disgust meet this standard.
Supporting sources
Yes when the advice creates an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of contamination. Recommending uncovered storage beside a flood-prone waterway exposes nearby residents to harm from storm runoff, and the foreseeable realization of that risk supports liability to affected third parties.
Supporting sources
No. A lawyer may not permit a person who pays for the representation to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment. Assurances to limit investigation to the employee's personal conduct while excluding company-wide practices violate the rule requiring lawyer independence.
Supporting sources