Documents filed under Legal

Court Order voids Antrim Wind LLC PILOT agreement with Town of Antrim New Hampshire

Rtk-court_ruling_5-22-13_thumb NH Superior Court has found that the Town of Antrim was in violation of the State's Right to Know law by conducting numerous unnoticed, non-public meetings to negotiate the PILOT agreement between the Town and Antrim Wind LLC, a company seeking to erect a wind energy facility in the Town. A portion of the ruling is provided below. The full order can be accessed by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.
20 May 2013

Drennan v. K2 Wind Ontario Inc

2013onsc2831_thumb In this order, Justice Duncan Grace stays the proceeding on the question of whether the K2 Wind Project should be stopped. The Court acknowledges that approval of the project must first be granted and the harms raised by the plaintiffs be demonstrated first. This was not a dismissal of the proceedings, only a delay until after an approval is issued.
15 May 2013

Lawsuit: Searchlight Wind Energy Project complaint

Searchligh_wind_complaint_thumb Environmental groups and residents of Nevada have filed a complaint in U.S. District Court of Nevada challenging the Department of the Interior's permit granting Duke Energy permission to construct an 87-turbine wind energy facility east of Searchlight on 19,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land. Excerpts of the complaint are provided below. The plaintiffs argue that Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. The full complaint can be accessed by clicking on the link(s) at the bottom of this page.
13 Apr 2013

Citizens v. Iberdrola Hardscrabble Wind Farm

S_c_filed_thumb This complaint filed in the New York Supreme Court details the specific impacts claimed by each plaintiff in regard to Iberdrola's Hardscrabble wind enegry facility, a 74 megawatt power project that went on line in early 2011. The project is located in Herkimer County, NY. The complaint includes a loss of enjoyment of outside activities on their land, and inability to open windows due to noise; some include loss of income due to noise (including as a voice teacher), and some note behavior changes in domestic and wild animals (one notes that bear, deer, turkeys, and grouse no longer frequent his land).  No specific damage amount is requested.
22 Oct 2012

Supreme Court of Ohio order on Application of Buckeye Wind, L.L.C.

2012-ohio-878_thumb The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld an order issued by the state’s Power Siting Board approving the application of Buckeye Wind LLC to construct and operate a large-scale “wind farm” in Champaign County. The court’s 4-3 opinion authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger includes dissenting opinions by two justices. The dissenting opinions provide important insight into the problems with the State's approval of the project. Those opinions are provided below. The full order can be accessed by clicking on the links at the bottom of this page.
5 Mar 2012

White v Town of Orangeville, Stony Creek Wind et.al.

White_v_town_of_orangeville_thumb State Supreme Court Justice Patrick NeMoyer ruled in favor of property owner Robert White, who said the planned wind turbine was too close to his hunting cabin off Bantam Road. The decision nullifies the special use permit and site plan approvals for tower T-28. Judge NeMoyer ruled the planned turbine was improperly sited within 1,320 feet of White’s cabin. He also dismissed Stony Creek LLC’s counterclaim that the cabin is not a dwelling. The decision issued by the judge can be accessed by clicking the links on this page.
4 Jan 2012

Appeal of: Broad Mountain Development Company, LLC

Broad_mountian_development_company_thumb This 18-page opinion and order issued by a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel upheld county Judge Charles M. Miller's ruling that the zoning permit issued to  Broad Mountain Development Co. LLC was correctly revoked by Butler Township. Broad Mountain sought permission to construct 20-28 wind turbines in the township. The panel found the developer did not have the right to the permit because wind turbines were not allowed in a Woodland-Conservation zoning district in the township. In addition, the panel ruled that the citizens who opposed the building of the windmills filed a timely appeal of Broad Mountain's original permit, and the company did not acquire a vested right to the permit, according to the opinion written by Judge P. Kevin Brobson.
7 Mar 2011

Tribunal orders turbines removed from French countryside

Tgi_montpellier_fev_2010_thumb This important case before le tribunal de Montpellier has resulted in a decision ordering La Compagnie du Vent to dismantle 4 of the 21-turbines sited near Névian, France. The judge also awarded damages of €500,000 to the family which brought the case to compensate for the nuisance caused and the estimated loss in value of their property, which is situated 650 meters from the nearest turbine. A rough translation of the ruling is provided below. The full ruling, in French, can be accessed by clicking the link(s) on this page.
4 Feb 2010

Robert H. Boyle Et Al. V. John Mcglynn Et Al.

2006-ny-boyle-v-mcglynn_thumb Background: One month after the plaintiffs purchased defendants' 133-acre Otsego County property, they learned that plans were in the works for the construction of large wind turbines on the adjacent parcel. They thereafter commenced this action seeking rescission of the contract and money damages stemming from alleged fraud and misrepresentation on the part of defendants in conjunction with the sale. At issue was an order of the Supreme Court denying summary judgment to the defendants. Summary judgment is when the court rules against a party without a trial) to defendants. The court upheld the denial of summary judgment. The ruling can be accessed by clicking the links on this page. 
20 Apr 2006

Rose v. Chaikin

1982-nj-rose-v-chaikin-hall_thumb This case, before the New Jersey Superior Court, represents one of the first instances of a nuisance case brought against an operating wind turbine due to noise. The court found that the defendants' wind turbine constituted an "actionable nuisance". 
10 Nov 1982

http://www.windaction.org/posts?p=5&topic=Legal&type=Document
back to top