United States v. McGeehan, 625 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2010). · Go Syfert
United States v. McGeehan, 625 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in other words, the statute takes the water's point of view: water is indifferent about who initially polluted it so long as pollution continues to occur.”
46 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kanawha Forest Coalition v. Keystone West Virginia, LLC (wvsd, 2023-10-04) · Strongest negative: United States v. Milovanovic (ca9, 2010-12-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Milovanovic
9th Cir. · 2010 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, e.g., United States v. McGeehan, 584 F.3d 560, 568 (3d Cir.2009) (noting prior Third Circuit caselaw which endorsed the limiting principle "that state law must provide the specific honest services owed by the defendant in a fiduciary relationship" (quotation omitted)), vacated 625 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1265 (11th Cir.2007) ("[T]o prove `honest services' mail fraud, the Government must show that the accused intentionally participated in a scheme or artifice to deprive the persons or entity to which the defendant owed a fiduciary duty of the int…
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. Milovanovic
9th Cir. · 2010 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, e.g., United States v. McGeehan, 584 F.3d 560, 568 (3d Cir.2009) (noting prior Third Circuit caselaw which endorsed the limiting principle "that state law must provide the specific honest services owed by the defendant in a fiduciary relationship” (quotation omitted)), vacated 625 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1265 (11th Cir.2007) (“[T]o prove 'honest services' mail fraud, the Government must show that the accused intentionally participated in a scheme or artifice to deprive the persons or entity to which the defendant owed a fiduciary duty of the…
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Kanawha Forest Coalition v. Keystone West Virginia, LLC (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
S.D.W. Va · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
here . . . the mine owner generates pollution but then abandons the site, the subsequent operator is the party responsible for obtaining a permit
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Federal Insurance Company v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
9th Cir. · 2011 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in other words, the statute takes the water's point of view: water is indifferent about who initially polluted it so long as pollution continues to occur.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Courtland Company, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corporation (Courtland III) (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.W. Va · 2022 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman (Huffman II), 625 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “pollutant” is broadly defined).5 In fact, UCC has admitted to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection that pollutants from Filmont and Massey Railyard are making their way into the groundwater and surface water.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Courtland Company, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corporation (Courtland IV) (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.W. Va · 2022 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman (Huffman II), 625 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “pollutant” is broadly defined).5 In fact, UCC has admitted to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection that pollutants from Filmont and Massey Railyard are making their way into the groundwater and surface water.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. Red River Coal Company, Inc.
W.D. Va. · 2019 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2010).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston, West Virginia v. McCarthy
S.D.W. Va · 2018 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159, 162 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating that NPDES “permits set forth limitations on the type and quantity of pollutants that will ultimately be released into navigable waters”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Shiloh Group, LLC
N.D. Cal. · 2017 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2010) (emphasis omitted)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Appalachian Fuels, LLC
Bankr. E.D. Ky. · 2014 · confidence medium
Highlands Conservancy, 625 F.3d at 161, 167 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Hernshaw Partners, LLC (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.W. Va · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. at 165, 167 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Appalachian Fuels, LLC (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. BAP · 2013 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, 625 F.3d at 161, 167 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Appalachian Fuels, LLC v. (2×) also: Cited "see"
6th Cir. BAP · 2013 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, 625 F.3d at 161, 167 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2×)
9th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Va. Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir.2010) (“In other words, the statute takes the water’s point of view: water is indifferent about who initially polluted it so long as pollution continues to occur.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michigan Farm Bureau v. Department of Environmental Quality
Mich. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
A state that administers its own NPDES program may adopt discharge standards and effluent limitations that are more stringent than the federal standards and limitations. 40 CFR 123.1(i)(l); West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc v Huffman, 625 F3d 159, 162 (CA 4, 2010); see also 40 CFR 123.25(a).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2×)
9th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Va. High *1249 lands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir.2010) (“In other words, the statute takes the water’s point of view: water is indifferent about who initially polluted it so long as pollution continues to occur.”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Black Warrior River-Keeper, Inc. v. Drummond Co.
N.D. Ala. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Huffman , 625 F.3d at 168 (quoting El Paso Gold Mines , 421 F.3d at 1144 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ANR v. Henry
Vt. Super. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Thus, the 10th Circuit concluded that El Paso could be held liable under the federal Clean Water Act for ongoing discharges from its dormant mine property even though El Paso had never operated the mine or actively contributed to the discharges from its property."' E. at 1136, 1141, 1146; see also West Virginia l-Iighlands Conservation, Inc. v. Huffman, 625 F.3d 159, 161, 164, 167-68 (4th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a state agency 4 Whjle the 10th Circuit established this legal standard, it reversed the district court’s entry of summary judgment against El Paso after concluding that some mat…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lawrence McGEEHAN, Appellant at No. 05-1954 Kathleen Haluska, Appellant at No. 05-2446
05-1954, 05-2446.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Oct 26, 2010.
625 F.3d 159
Michael L. Ivory, Laura S. Irwin, Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for United States of America., Stephen H. Begler, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.
Anthony J. Scirica.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

Upon consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2931, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), as well as the parties’ representations in their letter-briefs, the precedential opinion and judgment filed on October 22, 2009, are hereby vacated. In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Skilling that 18 U.S.C. § 1346 covers only bribery and kickback schemes, as well as the representations of the parties in their letter-briefs, the judgment of the District Court as to counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Superseding Indictment is hereby vacated. The case is hereby remanded for the District Court to consider Appellants’ argument that their convictions as to counts 23 through 29 were tainted by the introduction of evidence related to the mail and wire fraud counts. We ask the District Court to address this argument in the first instance. In so doing, the District Court should address the issue of whether, as the government urges, this argument is not available to Appellant Haluska by virtue of her guilty plea. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.