Completed quickly and followed instructions given. Grammar, spelling, etc. was all good as well. Thank you so much! Will hire in the future.
Select an environmental justice (EJ) court case from the list below. For the case you select, formulate an opinion concerning the judge’s ruling. The completed EJ case evaluation must include separate sections, labeled, for the following information:
(1) detailed background history of the EJ case (15 points)
(2) identification of the environmental law or policy cited in the case (15 points)
(3) identification of the scope and specific requirements of the law in the case (10 points)
(4) description of the position and arguments of the plaintiff(s) (10 points)
(5) description of the position and arguments of the defendant(s) (10 points)
(6) description of the final decision of the judge and the justification for the decision (20 points)
(7) statement of whether you agree or disagree with the decision (support your response with specific legal examples and information you found in your research (5 points)
(8) your paper should follow the above instructions and be 8-10 pages in length, double-spaced, excluding the references page (10 points), and
(9) your paper must be written in appropriate technical style and contain full citations of all sources used in APA format (5 points)
This analysis should be written in your own words, not simply paraphased from legal databases. Extensive quotes will not count toward the required length of the paper and should be avoided. The point is to read the case histories and be able to articulate the key issues and decisions.
Attach your submitted paper in the Assignment section of the classroom.
Select from the following Cases:
South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 274F3d 771(3d Cir, 2001)
Rosemere Neighborhood Association v EPA. No.08-35045 DC No. CV07-5080 (BHS opinion Sept 17, 2009)
South Fork Band Council of Western Shoshone of Nevada v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 588 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2009)
Hartford Park Tenants Association v.Rhode Island Dept. of Env. Management, Index No. 99/3748 (Sup.Ct.R.I.)
Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environmental Review Tribunal), (2008), 36 E.E. L.R. (3d) 191 (Ont Div Ct)
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more