This document provides summaries of four environmental lawsuits: 1) Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia concerned asbestos lawsuits filed in Texas that were blocked by a BC court's ruling on forum non-conveniens. 2) Compagnie Francaise de Navigation concerned a Louisiana quarantine law challenged for infringing on interstate commerce and foreign treaties. 3) PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County involved hydroelectric dam permitting and required stream flows to protect salmon under the Clean Water Act. 4) Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference established the right of environmental groups to participate in regulatory proceedings that may affect their special interests in aesthetics, conservation, and recreation.

1. Norvergence Class Action
Different Environmental Lawsuits across the Globe

2. Norvergence class action presents a list of lawsuits
where the environment is at risk because of the
behavior or wrongdoing of some non-environmental
entities.

3. Norvergence Class Action: List of
Environmental Lawsuits
Our team has researched and shortlisted various
environmental lawsuits. All of them deserve
great importance and you must know about
them:

4. ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
01
04
https://norvergence.contently.com/
02
03
Norvergence Class Action:
Scenic Hudson Preservation
Conference v. Federal Power
Commission
Norvergence Class Action:
Compagnie Francaise de
Navigation a Vapeur v.
Louisiana Board of Health
Norvergence Class Action:
Amchem Products Incorporated
v. British Columbia (Workers’
Compensation Board), [1993] 1
SCR 897
Norvergence Class Action: PUD
No. 1 of Jefferson County v.
Washington Department of
Ecology
Norvergence Class Action

5. Norvergence Class Action: Amchem
Products Incorporated v. British
Columbia (Workers’ Compensation
Board), [1993] 1 SCR 897

6. Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia (Workers’
Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 is an
important decision taken by the Supreme Court of
Canada on forum non-conveniens. The Court toppled an
anti-suit directive gave by the British Columbia Supreme
Court against the courts in Texas on the premise that the
British Columbia (BC) court was not a suitable forum for
this case.

7. Various British Columbia residents started an activity
against some US makers of asbestos in Texas. The Texas
court acknowledged authority over the issue and heard
the case. The makers applied to the BC Supreme Court
to give an enemy of suit order, contending that the
correct forum for the offended parties would be in BC
and not in Texas.

8. Norvergence Class Action: Compagnie
Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v.
Louisiana Board of Health

9. This case held constitutional state laws requiring
the involuntary quarantine of people to forestall
the spread of ailment. In contradict, Justice Henry Billings
Brown, joined by John Marshall Harlan, concurred that
while isolate laws were correct and important,
Louisiana’s went past the extent of the state’s position
over the interstate business, thus, damaging some
treaties between the United States
and different countries.

10. Norvergence Class Action: PUD No. 1
of Jefferson County v. Washington
Department of Ecology

11. The case represented an application by the
Jefferson County Public Utility District and Tacoma
City Light in northwestern Washington to establish a
hydropower office on the Dosewallips River.
The Washington State Department of Ecology gave
accreditation to the task in 1986 that forced minimal
water stream necessities to secure species of
salmon

12. and steelhead under the government Clean Water Act.
Tacoma City Light contended that the dam venture
would only need to follow the stream norms set by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), who
permit dams. Environmental groups
contended that the FERC was
inhumane towards the safety of
salmon and steelhead and requested
that the state implement its minimum
stream standards.

13. Norvergence Class Action: Scenic
Hudson Preservation Conference v.
Federal Power Commission

14. A group of residents, the Scenic Hudson Preservation
Conference, composed and started lawful activity after
the Federal Power Commission affirmed plans for
Consolidated Edison to develop a power plant on
Storm King Mountain, New York.
Circuit Judge Paul R. Hays, in the court’s decision for
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal
Power Commission, said: In order to ensure that the
Federal Power Commission will adequately protect the
public interest in the aesthetic, conservational, and

15. recreational aspects of power development, those
who by their activities and conduct have exhibited a
special interest in such areas must be held to be
included in the class of ‘aggrieved’ parties
under s. 313 (b).
We hold that the Federal Power Act gives
petitioners a legal right to protect their
special interests..

16. Visit here:
https://www.norvergence.com/norvergence-class-action/