Forchelli, Deegan, Terrana LLP

The Firm represents a broad range of clients, including national, regional and local businesses, public, private and family-owned companies, major real estate developers, property owners and operators, contractors, banks, municipalities, educational institutions, not-for-profits, foundations, and individuals. Personal attention and quality representation that is both practical and cost-effective are hallmarks of the Firm.

Forchelli, Deegan, Terrana LLP Blogs

Latest from Forchelli, Deegan, Terrana LLP

In Gould Electronics v Livingston County Road Commission, 2022 WL 1467650 (6th Cir. May 10, 2022), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a claim between the responsible party at a Superfund Site (Gould) and a neighbor (Livingston).  The main subject of the dispute was who was responsible for the contamination on the Livingston property. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v Federal Aviation Administration reads like an ordinary environmental review decision. The issue was whether the agency took the required “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts and the court said that it did. It is the dissent that should

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (decided June 23, 2021) the Supreme Court decided that a regulation that required agricultural employers to allow union representatives to access their property for up to 3 hours per day for 120 days per year, was a per se taking, reversing a 9th Circuit decision that held this regulation

Two recent Appellate Division decisions addressed segmentation claims and concluded that there cannot be segmentation unless there is a plan. Under SEQRA (the State Environmental Quality Review Act), it is illegal to take a project that may have significant impacts and break it in to smaller parts (segments) for environmental review purposes, each of which

It is not unusual for a developing rule or other agency action to be something of a moving target, with an agency responding to comments in a way that leaves some in the regulated community complaining that they did not receive the required fair opportunity to comment before the rule or agency action became final.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Center for Biological Diversity v US Forest Service, 2019 WL 2293425 (May 30, 2019) raises important questions about the extent to which someone might be held liable for failing to prevent someone else from causing environmental harm. The Center for Biological Diversity alleged that the Forest Service