Search results
Gwaltney argued that the language of § 505(a), which permits private citizens to bring suit against any person "alleged to be in violation" of the Act, requires that a defendant be violating the Act at. Page 484 U. S. 55 the time of suit. Gwaltney urged the District Court to adopt the analysis of the Fifth Circuit in Hamker v.
Gwaltney argued that the language of 505 (a), which permits private citizens to bring suit against any person "alleged to be in violation" of the Act, 1 requires that a defendant be violating the Act at [484 U.S. 49, 55] the time of suit. Gwaltney urged the District Court to adopt the analysis of the Fifth Circuit in Hamker v.
The permit, which was reissued in 1979 and modified in 1980, established effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions of discharge. In 1981, petitioner Gwaltney of Smithfield acquired the assets of ITT-Gwaltney and assumed obligations under the permit. Between 1981 and 1984, petitioner repeatedly violated the conditions ...
D moved in May 1985 for dismissal of the action for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Act. Gwaltney argued that the language of § 505(a), which permits private citizens to bring suit against any person 'alleged to be in violation' of the Act, requires that a defendant be violating the Act at the time of suit.
Gwaltney's last recorded violation. 17 . In their complaint, the plain-tiffs allege that Gwaltney "has violated. .. [and] will continue to violate its NPDES permit," and asked the federal District Court of the Eastern Division of Virginia to provide declaratory and in-junctive relief, impose civil penalties, and award attorney's fees
The Petitioner, Gwaltney, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, Inc., owned and operated a meat-packing plant near Smithfield, Virginia. Smithfield Foods purchased Gwaltney from ITT-Gwaltney, Inc., tak-ing control of the plant on October 27, 1981. The plant was located on and discharged wastewater into the Pagan River. Five months
language "alleged to be in violation" clearly limited citizen suits to those cases in which there was an ongoing violation of the Clean Water Act.21 The Fourth Circuit explicitly rejected the position of the Hamker court in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation.22 After
