Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Ouellette v. International Paper Co.

776 F.2d 55

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1985-11-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: By order dated February 5, 1985, the district court, Albert W. Coffrin, Chief Judge, denied defendant’s motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) and 56(b) to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action concerning water pollution. Ouellette v. International Paper Co., 602 F.Supp. 264 (D.Vt.1985). The district court held (i) that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. authorizes this action involving interstate water pollution claims by owners of property in Vermont against an effluent *56producer located in New York to be maintained in the courts and under the common law of the State of Vermont, where the alleged injuries occurred; (ii) that neither the Two-Party Agreement nor the Four-Party Agreement entered into by the State of Vermont in settlement of Vermont v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ouellette v. International Paper Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
OUELLETTE v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.,776 F.2d 55(2nd Cir. 1985)
HARMEL OUELLETTE AND LILA OUELLETTE, CLIFTON BROWNE AND EDLA BROWNE, ALDEE
PLOUFFE AND SHIRLEY PLOUFFE, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS, H. VAUGHN GRIFFIN, SR., ARDATH
GRIFFIN, ALAN THORNDIKE AND ELLEN THORNDIKE, WESLEY C. LARRABEE AND VIRGINIA
LARRABEE, F. ALFRED PATTERSON, JR., AND LOIS T. PATTERSON,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 201, Docket 85-7506.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued October 17, 1985.
Decided November 4, 1985.
Susan F. Eaton, Middlebury, Vt. (Peter F. Langrock, Emily J. Joselson, Langrock Sperry Parker Wool, Middlebury, Vt., Smith, Harlow Liccardi, Rutland, Vt., Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Atty. Gen. of the State of Vt., Montpelier, Vt., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

James W.B. Benkard, New York City (Jamie Stern, John R. D'Angelo, Davis Polk Wardwell, New York City, Dinse, Erdmann Clapp, Burlington, Vt., of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Before KAUFMAN, PRATT, and MINER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] By order dated February 5, 1985, the district court, Albert W. Coffrin,Chief Judge,denied defendant's motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) and 56(b) to dismiss plaintiffs' cause of action concerning water pollution.Ouellette v. InternationalPaper Co.,602 F.Supp. 264 (D.Vt. 1985). The district court held (i) that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251et seq.authorizes this action involving interstate water pollution claims by owners of property in Vermont against an effluentPage 56producer located in New York to be maintained in the courts and under the common law of the State of Vermont, where the alleged injuries occurred; (ii) that neither the Two-Party Agreement nor the Four-Party Agreement entered into by the State of Vermont in settlement ofVermont v. New York,419 U.S. 955, 95 S.Ct. 246, 42 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974), bars this suit; and (iii) that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient special damages to state a claim for nuisance.

[2] We affirm the order appealed from, essentially for the reasons set forth in Chief Judge Coffrin's thorough opinion, which we adopt in all respects except one. Chief Judge Coffrin distinguishedBadgley v. City of New York,606 F.2d 358(2d Cir. 1979),cert. denied,447 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 2989, 64 L.Ed.2d 855 (1980), finding that the settlement contract at bar differed "in two important ways" from the settlement decree and compact there.Ouellette,602 F.Supp. at 273-74. We view his second distinguishing reason, grounded in the scope, terms, and language of the respective agreements, and, particularly, the differences in their "saving clauses", to be sufficient to remove this case from theBadgleyprinciple. We express no view on what weight, if any, should be given to the first distinguishing reason mentioned by Chief Judge Coffrin: that unlike the settlement order and compact inBadgley,the contractual resolution of the prior dispute here received neither congressional nor judicial approval.

[3] Affirmed.Page 383