The Law Office of G. Macy Nelson, LLC
The Law Office of G. Macy Nelson, LLC

ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE

G. Macy Nelson has successfully litigated environmental cases in the United States District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Maryland’s circuit courts, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and the Maryland Court of Appeals, as well as administrative agencies. His cases have been at the leading edge of the law.

 

Environmental Law practice areas:

  • Environmental litigation
  • Groundwater contamination
  • Surface water pollution
  • Air pollution
  • Industrial permits for discharge of pollutants
  • Nuisances caused by industry
  • Wetlands permits
  • Storm water management
  • Watershed protection

During 2016

 

  • The firm won a precedent-setting case in which Maryland’s highest court held that the law permits a land owner to sue the Maryland Department of the Environment for inverse condemnation where the landowner’s property became contaminated as a result of the Department failure to enforce the applicable environmental laws. Litz v. Maryland Dep’t of Env’t, 446 Md. 254, 131 A.3d 923 (2016).

During the 2010's

 

  • The firm persuaded Maryland’s highest court to rule that the statute of limitations did not bar claim for damages caused by chronic pollution. Litz v. Maryland Dep't of Env't, 434 Md. 623, 76 A.3d 1076 (2013).
  • The firm established Maryland’s new rule for standing in cases where a citizen-plaintiff challenges an environmental permit issued by the State of Maryland. Patuxent Riverkeeper v. Md. Dep’t of the Env’t, 422 Md. 294, 29 A.3d 584 (2011).

During the 2000's

  • The firm successfully established that Prince George’s County, Maryland must consider its General Plan’s limitation on nonresidential development in that county’s rural areas. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. 73, 985 A.2d 1160 (2009).
  • The firm obtained a jury verdict in Washington County of $407,000 for damages caused by an oil company's negligent discharge of oil into his clients’ home.
  • The firm successfully persuaded the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to reject Carroll County's argument that its permit to discharge treated sewage into a small trout stream was too strict. County Commissioners of Carroll County v. Dorothy Rowland, et al., No. 2338, September Term, 2004 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. January 17, 2006) (Eyler, Deborah S., J.).
  • The firm successfully persuaded the Final Decision Maker of the Maryland Department of the Environment to affirm the proposed decision of an Administrative Law Judge to disapprove a permit to discharge treated sewage. Jerry W. Cecil, Sr., et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, OAH No. MDE-WMA-063-200000005 (November 14, 2005).
  • The firm successfully persuaded the Final Decision Maker of the Maryland Department of the Environment to deny Carroll County's request for a variance from the prohibition against discharging heated effluent into a trout stream. Dorothy Rowland, et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, OAH Nos. MDE-WMA-063-200000001, MDE-WMA-063-200000002 (November 18, 2003).
  • The firm successfully persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to order that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit not be renewed for a sewage treatment plant. Jerry W. Cecil, Sr., et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, OAH No. MDE-WMA-063-200000005 (September 20, 2001)
  • The firm successfully persuaded the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to vacate a decision by the Maryland Department of the Environment to renew a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Jerry W. Cecil, Sr., et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment, No. 6923, September Term, 1998 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. April 12, 2000) (Murphy, C.J.).



During the 1990’s

 

  • He obtained a jury verdict of $650,000 for clients in Dorchester County for contamination caused by nearby industry.
  • He represented Baltimore City residents who lived adjacent to a scrap yard and used a common law nuisance theory to successfully sue the scrap yard. See Hoffman v. United Iron & Metal Co., Inc., 108 Md. App. 117, 671 A.2d 55 (1996).
  • He established that the law prohibited sewage treatment plants from discharging heat into trout streams. C. Victoria Woodward, et al. v. the Maryland Department of Environment, No. 1660, September Term, 1997 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. August, 17, 1998)(Salmon, J.). That victory required the Maryland Department of the Environment to restrict the discharge of heat from many sewage treatment plants throughout the state.

During the 1980’s

 

  • He won the first citizens Clean Water Act case in Maryland. Sierra Club v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 617 F. Supp. 1120 (D. Md. 1985), aff’d Sierra Club v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 847 F.2d 1109 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 3185 (1989).
  • He won the first citizens Clean Air Act case in Maryland. Md. Waste Coal. v. SCM Corp., 616 F. Supp. 1474 (D. Md. 1985).
  • He initiated a citizen’s RCRA notice of intention to file suit against Allied Chemical which triggered the signing of a Consent Decree between the Maryland Department of the Environment and Allied Chemical. The Consent Decree required the remediation of the Allied Chemical site in Baltimore City.
Print Print | Sitemap
© The Law Office of G. Macy Nelson, LLC
Notice: This site is for informational purposes only, and nothing on it constitutes legal advice. Articles and other materials concerning successes in past cases handled by this firm do not constitute representations about future results.