Attorney Dan Schleck Provides a Summary of Minnesota Grant Programs

Minnesota has a vast number of well funded grant programs at the State and local level that can provide funds for clean-up, redevelopment, demolition, abatement and infrastructure for real estate development projects. These programs are complicated and require experience to be successful.

Texas Court Does Not Believe in Stigma Damages in Appraisals

Stigma damages have no place in an appraisal, at least not in Texas. Recently in an 8-0 decision, the Texas Supreme Court refused to accept testimony of an appraiser regarding stigma damages saying the conjecture, speculation and guessing was not sufficient proof of such damages.

Attorney Dan Schleck comments on MPCA enforcement efforts against St. Paul Park Refining

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)is stepping up its enforcement efforts for hazardous waste violations and has fined one of the biggest companies in Minnesota. This fine represents the MPCA's renewed efforts at enforcing hazardous waste, stormwater and generally water regulations in Minnesota

Vapor Intrusion Is an Increasing Area of Public and Regulatory Concern

Vapor Intrusion occurs when residual contamination in soil vaporizes and travels into homes, buildings and other enclosed areas. Vapor Intrusion is an increasing area of Public and Regulatory Concern as a new risk pathway for exposure to contaminants.

Musicland v. Ceridian Most Important Case regarding Minnesota Environmental Liability

Musicland v. Ceridian was the most important case in Minnesota regarding cost recovery. Evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Control Data was negligent, and the damages awarded to Musicland were both reasonable and necessary response costs. The trial court erred by awarding attorney fees for time spent on Musicland's summary judgment motion, but the remaining award was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe v. United States Changed the CERCLA Apportionment Doctrine

Overall, in Burlington Northern the Supreme Court lowered the evidentiary bar that PRPs must hurdle in order to prove divisibility and apportionment are proper. In addition, the Court indicated that divisibility and apportionment is a viable alternative to joint and several liability, a dangerous proposition for those concerned about the long term viability of CERCLA. Despite these principles set forth by the Court in Burlington Northern, the district courts have thus far distinguished the case in an effort to preserve CERCLA’s joint and several liability scheme and the long-term viability of the law.

CERCLA Liability Changed Forever by BNSF v. US

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a case that many scholars posited would greatly upset CERCLA’s joint and several liability scheme by making it easier to divide and apportion liability between parties, which would result in the government picking up the tab for a higher proportion of remediation costs.