In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer's creek so he sued to stop the pollution, the appeals court held that:
A) the plaintiff did not have any rights with regard to the water flowing through his property
B) the fact that the damage to the plaintiff was slight compared with the defendant's expense of abating the condition was a good reason for refusing an injunction
C) since the damage to the plaintiff was slight, there was no case
D) since the damage to the plaintiff was slight, so the defendant should not have to pay damages
E) none of the other choices are correct
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q220: In pollution cases involving strict liability for
Q221: In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper
Q222: In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement, where a
Q223: In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement, where a
Q224: In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper
Q226: Federal authority to control air pollution was
Q227: Under the common law, if a court
Q228: Under riparian water law, people who live
Q229: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA
Q230: In Boomer v. Atlantic Cement, where a
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents