Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989).  Mr. Charles Elliott represented environmental groups opposing the issuance of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor facility before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in the federal courts.  We argued that the NRC was required to consider design alternatives and severe accident risk mitigation measures prior to issuance of the license.  The U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the license and for the first time in the nation's history ordered the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission to analyze nuclear power reactor design safety alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act. As a result of our work, the facility was backfitted with mitigation measures and the nuclear accident risk of the facility was reduced. (case opinion: www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/538168) 

L.E.A.D. Group, et al. v. Exide Corporation, 1999 WL 124473 (United States District Court, E.D. Pa., 1999).  We successfully concluded federal litigation on behalf of victims of environmental pollution involving area-wide lead contamination caused by secondary lead smelting and battery manufacturing facilities in Pennsylvania with a court decree which provided for the remediation of contaminated properties and future environmental compliance. We brought successful federal claims under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). (case opinion: LEAD Exide Case.pdf)
 
Borough of Glendon v. Department of Environmental Resources, et al., 145 Pa. Commonwealth 238, 663 A.2d 226 (1992).  We successfully represented a governmental client in overturning state environmental permits for a solid waste incineration facility proposed to be sited within the municipality and which threatened to release toxic materials including lead and other heavy metals and dioxin.  (case opinion: Glendon v. GEC.pdf)           
 
Glendon Energy Company v. The Borough of Glendon, 656 A.2d 150 (1995).  We successfully represented a governmental client in defending its decision to deny land use permits to municipal solid waste facility. (case opinion: GEC v. Glendon II.pdf)
 
Tri-State Transfer Co. Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 722 A.2d 1129 (Pa. Cmwlth., 1999) We represented an environmental organization in successful state court proceedings to overturn state environmental permits for a solid waste management facility proposed to be sited near a high-quality waterway which was protected under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. (case opinion: Tri-State Transfer.pdf)

CORCO, et al. v Pfizer Pigments, Inc., Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority (United States District Court, E.D. Pa.). We successfully concluded litigation against several large corporations for violations of the federal Clean Water Act which polluted the Delaware River. That litigation resulted in payments by one defendant of $3.1 million in civil penalties, the nation's then-largest civil penalty for violations of the federal "pretreatment regulations" under the Clean Water Act, and a halt to the polluting activities. (unreported; case settlement)

Lara, Inc. v. South Whitehall Township, et al., 1989 WL 23079 (United States District Court, E.D. Pa. 1989). We represented a local company put out of business as the result of an agreement between two defendants, a municipality and an amusement park. After the state courts supported the defendants, we took the case to federal court. That court recognized the validity of our claims that an unlawful conspiracy by the defendants deprived our client of its liberty and property rights under the substantive and procedural due process components of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. (case opinion: Lara v. South Whitehall.pdf)

SI Handling Systems, Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244 (3rd Cir.1985). Sometimes a local client gives us the opportunity to present a case of international importance. Our client was an industry-leading high technology company which had developed the first automotive materials handling system ("CarTrac") having the capability of operating different cars at different speeds at different points in the assembly line ("asynchronous" operation), and to accelerate, decelerate, or stop an individual car at various points in the system with great precision and reliability. This was the first such system in the United States. Our client enjoyed trade secret and patent protection. It licensed the technology for use by Nissan in Japan and the technology was  subsequently employed by General Motors and Chrysler. After a renegade cadre of employees left the company and went into business for themselves offering a nearly identical technology, we sued them for unfair competition and misappropriation of intellectual property. We obtained an injunction from the federal trial court which was appealed by the employees to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In deciding 30 separate legal issues, the Court agreed that our client was entitled to trade secret protection for various critical elements of its engineering and business. (case opinion: SI Handling Systems.pdf)

D'Amelio v. Blue Cross of Lehigh Valley, 347 Pa. Super. 441, 500 A.2d 1137 (1985) We represented a medical patient who was trapped between his health insurance company claiming that his treatment was not "medically necessary" and his hospital (a member of his insurance company) claiming that it was. It was only after treatment that the dispute arose, and the insurance companys denial was retroactive. We brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of the patient and all those similarly situated against both the insurer and the hospital. On appeal, the state appellate court agreed with us that the trial court had erred in concluding that the case should not proceed as a class action. (case opinion: D'Amelio Class Action.pdf)

Big Knob Volunteer Fire Co. v. Lowe & Moyer Garage, Inc., 338 Pa. Super. 257, 487 A.2d 953, 40 UCC Rep. Serv. 1691 (1985) A complex commercial case of such legal import that it has been reported in the nationwide Uniform Commercial Code Reporter, and cited across the country more than 60 times.  (case opinion: Big Knob.pdf)

(Please note that every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, and therefore past results do not predict future outcomes.)