December 29, 2011

Category: Arkansas Environmental, Energy, and Water Law

Download PDF

Author: Walter G. Wright In Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. vs. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, Conn. App. LEXIS 538 (September 14, 2011) a Connecticut appellate court addressed an inverse condemnation issue. A property owner, Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. ("Venture") owned certain property consisting of 12 lots. The Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection had issued a final Administrative Pollution Abatement Order with respect to the plaintiff's lots. The plaintiff argued that three of the lots were not contaminated and the application of the Pollution Abatement Order to those constituted an inverse condemnation. The appellate court held that the trial court's finding that plaintiff had not adduced sufficient proof that the three lots were uncontaminated was supported by ample evidence in the record and was not clearly erroneous. Specifically, the appellate court noted a witness for the Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection had testified that the three lots could not be declared free of further investigation of contamination, that the area was a highly suspect site due to its history of dumping, that buried waste was not visible to the naked eye, and that certain of the lots needed further investigation through groundwater monitoring wells, and that the plaintiff failed to introduce any scientific testimony regarding the lack of pollution on any of the three lots in question. A copy of the opinion can be downloaded below.
The Between the Lines blog is made available by Mitchell Williams Law Firm and the law firm publisher. The blog site is for educational purposes only, as well as to give general information and a general understanding of the law. This blog is not intended to provide specific legal advice. Use of this blog site does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Mitchell Williams or the blog site publisher. The Between the Lines blog site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.