# Victor John Yannacone Jr.

Victor John Yannacone, Jr., is an American attorney and environmental activist who was a pioneer of environmental law, advancing early legal theories that became foundational to the field. Known for his outspoken and colorful personality, he has been credited with some of the “most creative moments” in environmental law and for being “one of its greatest risk-takers.” His signature phrase, “Sue the Bastards,” epitomized his call for aggressive litigation to protect the environment.
Yannacone first gained national recognition in 1966 for groundbreaking lawsuits against the use of DDT, a pesticide later banned nationwide partly due to his efforts. In 1979, he led a massive class action lawsuit on behalf of Vietnam combat veterans exposed to Agent Orange, a dioxin-contaminated herbicide linked to severe health issues. This lawsuit, the largest and most complex legal action in the US at that time, took nearly a decade to litigate and made Agent Orange and dioxin household words.
Yannacone’s unorthodox methods, often described as “fiery” and “flamboyant,” sometimes strained relationships with colleagues, and critics called his approach “combative” and “abrasive.” Supporters, however, admired his frank, rhetorical style and principled faith in “courts of equity”—judicial recourse for wrongs that lack a remedy in current statutes. According to Charles Wurster, who worked closely with Yannacone on early environmental lawsuits, “Vic really thinks he can save the world…” and for his cause, “he’ll raise holy hell.”
Yannacone, along with his wife Carol, were founders of the Environmental Defense Fund. Yannacone helped shape its mission as the first US organization committed to aggressive litigation to protect the environment.

# Early Life and Education

Yannacone was born in 1936 in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, and grew up in Brownsville, then a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. In 1946, his father took the family to the “end of the line” of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and walked around the village of Patchogue in concentric circles until they found a house for sale. For a time, Yannacone was the state’s youngest Eagle Scout. In eighth grade, he decided to become a football player and later claimed he had read every football book in the New York Public Library.
Yannacone attended the private Catholic high school Seton Hall in Patchogue but later switched to Port Jefferson High School, hitchhiking from Patchogue daily. Upon graduation, he received 34 college scholarship offers. He initially intended to become a research neurosurgeon and biophysicist with a focus on electroneurophysiology. He attended several colleges, including Syracuse, NYU, and Kalamazoo, but he claimed his academic performance was unremarkable. At Kalamazoo, he played second-string quarterback and received his only A in “Theory of Coaching Football.”
After a year of working through weekend night shifts in the emergency room of Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo, he felt he could not become a physician and enrolled at Brooklyn Law School, often skipping law classes to audit semiconductor physics courses at Brooklyn Polytechnic in the same building. He has described his law school grades as poor, saying he “flunked contracts and received a D in torts” and graduated with “the lowest average… in the history of the law school.” He later pursued graduate work at New York Law School and took philosophy classes at Fordham University nearby.
Yannacone maintains an interest in biological sciences, physics, and engineering, with his broad scientific knowledge reflected in much of his high profile litigation. A 1969 Sports Illustrated profile described him as “formidably learned” with “almost demonic eclecticism.” His résumé listed skills in optical design, histological laboratory techniques, electronics, and offset lithography. It also noted he held a commercial radio-telephone license and played the baritone saxophone professionally.

# Early Career

During college, Yannacone worked as an engineering trainee at the RCA Laboratories in Rocky Point, Long Island, and also taught Sunday school. He then began his legal career by doing pro bono criminal defense work for the NAACP and representing injured workers and the victims of occupational disease in trials before the NY Workers Compensation Board.
In his legal career, Yannacone was strongly influenced by his father, a first-generation American who worked as a ditch digger before returning to high school and eventually put himself through law school as an insurance investigator and made a career representing injured workers, particularly immigrant laborers and construction workers. Yannacone Sr.’s dedication to workers’ rights and public service left a lasting impression on his son, who credited his father with fostering his sense of public duty and commitment to social justice.
In his 20s, Yannacone started a law firm with his father, continuing Yannacone Sr.’s focus on claimants’ rights in workers’ compensation cases. The firm often represented individuals in high-risk industries and took on numerous low-fee cases. Combined with his aptitude for science, the insight he gained from workers’ compensation claims about industrial practices and toxic chemicals would become the foundation for his later environmental litigation.
In 1959, at age 23, Yannacone handled one of his first public interest cases—an early example of advancing bold legal arguments rooted in historical or overlooked sources. During Christmas week that year, Yannacone and his father were fishing off Crane Neck Point in nearby Old Field village, within the town of Brookhaven, when Sinclair Hatch, a Wall Street attorney and local property owner, accused them of trespassing on private property and had them arrested.
Yannacone, who had just graduated from law school, subsequently filed suit against the village of Old Field, arguing successfully that all Brookhaven residents had a legal right to use the beaches. To support his argument, he presented the town’s colonial-era Dongan Patent, issued December 27, 1686, which he found in the town hall basement and still remained in effect.

# Environmental Activism and Litigation

In the 1960s, Yannacone’s legal work turned increasingly to public interest advocacy, particularly civil and Constitutional rights. The press often described his lawsuits as “David and Goliath” showdowns, with Yannacone, a self-described “country lawyer,” taking on powerful corporate interests for unchecked pollution of air and water, and damage to other natural resources. In the process, Yannacone introduced innovative legal theories and litigation strategies that led to the change from “conservation” to the environmental movement and established the emerging field of environmental law.
His early lawsuits on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an organization he co-founded, integrated robust scientific evidence with legal arguments, forcing industrial actors to publicly defend their products and operations. Critics sometimes described his courtroom style as “showmanship,” but these cases garnered significant press coverage, raising public awareness about critical environmental issues and intensifying demands for government action.
Breaking sharply from the conventions of conservationism at the time, which he criticized as overly cautious and ineffectual, Yannacone championed an aggressive, litigation-focused strategy. Although many of his cases fell short of decisive courtroom victories, their broader impact on public opinion and policymaking was significant. Publicity from these cases contributed to shifts in federal, state, and local policies and helped bring about landmark environmental legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 and the establishment of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970.

## DDT Wars

Yannacone first introduced his litigation philosophy and his emerging approach to environmental advocacy with efforts to halt the use of DDT.
DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane/1,1,1-trichloro, 2, 2-bis-p-chlorophenyl-ethane) came into wide use after World War II to control agricultural pests and malaria. However, it very quickly caused catastrophic declines in wildlife reproduction, especially in birds of prey like peregrine falcons, bald eagles, ospreys, and brown pelicans, whose eggshells became so thin that they often cracked before hatching. Entire ecosystems suffered as the pesticide disrupted reproduction, interrupted food sources, and decimated populations of fish, mammals, and insects in food chains throughout entire food webs. These devastating effects stemmed from DDT’s persistence in the environment, its inability to dissolve in water, its accumulation in animal fat, and its disruption of hormone metabolism.
Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring brought widespread awareness to persistent pesticides’ far-reaching ecological devastation as well as their potential harm to humans. Industry groups and their allies dismissed her findings, accused her of alarmism, and attempted to undermine her credibility, but despite this aggressive opposition, Silent Spring galvanized public concern.
In a string of lawsuits against DDT in New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Yannacone brought ecological science into the courtroom, triggering intense public debate and laying the groundwork for an eventual nationwide ban on DDT.

## Suffolk County DDT Lawsuit

In 1966, Yannacone filed the first “environmental” lawsuit in Suffolk County, Long Island. A year earlier, his wife Carol came upon a massive fish kill at Upper Yaphank Lake, which had been her favorite childhood swimming spot. Later reports showed the fish likely died as a result of a 5,000-gallon DDT dump by the Suffolk County Mosquito Commission. Outraged, Carol Yannacone demanded that her husband take legal action.
In April 1966, Yannacone filed a class action lawsuit to prevent the county from further spraying of DDT on local marshlands. The complaint was filed in New York State Supreme Court and brought on behalf of Carol Yannacone as plaintiff, representing “all the people of the United States, not only of this generation, but of those generations yet unborn.” On August 15, the court granted an injunction prohibiting the county’s use of DDT, and the case went to trial.
The case was the first of many environmental lawsuits in which Yannacone would advance his innovative legal theory, that environmental protection was a Constitutional right with roots in the public trust doctrine—an argument initially met with skepticism but later broadly recognized as a foundation of environmental law. The lawsuit was also the first use of his signature litigation strategy in which he made no claim for money damages but sought rather to prevent further environmental degradation on behalf of the public.
The case attracted national news coverage and widespread interest among legal scholars and environmentalists. The National Audubon Society announced it would publish the trial transcript in full.
Describing his early strategy as “basic Neanderthal,” Yannacone said he initially had no scientific experts and intended to simply ask the court to take judicial notice of the skull and crossbones on DDT packaging. In his trademark colorful language, he told a reporter he was going to prove in court that the commissioner “was an idiot” and to ask for a ruling that “idiots should not be allowed to spray toxic substances in Suffolk County.”
Nonetheless, Yannacone realized the case needed scientific support and enlisted the help of biologist Charles Wurster, who brought together experts from local institutions like the State University of New York at Stony Brook and Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Courtroom testimony provided by these scientists demonstrated the pervasive environmental and biological impacts of DDT, including its accumulation in wildlife and humans. In one memorable instance, Wurster testified, “Everybody in this room has got DDT in them,” and compared its use as a pesticide to “using atomic weapons to clear the New York streets of criminals.”
While the evidence for DDT’s harm was virtually incontrovertible, there was only circumstantial evidence linking it to the fish kill. Still, Yannacone argued, given the massive amount of DDT that had been dumped at the site, it defied logic to say it was unrelated, saying, “If the circumstantial evidence against DDT were presented against a criminal, he would be convicted without the slightest hesitation.”
The publicity around the case brought public pressure to bear on county officials, and before the court ruled on the case, the Mosquito Commission announced it would no longer use DDT, which was alone a substantial victory for Yannacone.
In his ruling issued a year later, Judge Stanislaw recognized the harmful effects of DDT, writing, “It is fairly apparent… DDT in Suffolk County has and is continuing to have a demonstrable effect on local wildlife, reducing it slowly but surely.” However, he deferred a permanent ban to the legislature, believing such decisions were best addressed through policymaking.
While the lawsuit did not achieve a definitive legal resolution, Yannacone considered it a victory, for successfully raising public awareness by marshalling the scientific evidence in open court and achieving its primary goals. The case exemplified the “winning while losing” strategy he would advocate and employ in many of his cases, in which the litigation’s broader impact often outweighed a conclusive legal outcome. Ultimately proving to be a landmark case, the Suffolk lawsuit has been frequently cited in legal scholarship on environmental law. The case also marked the first recorded use of “environmental law” as a legal field, with its coinage attributed to Yannacone.

## Environmental Defense Fund

In the fall of 1967, after partnering on the Suffolk County DDT case, Yannacone and Wurster, along with a group of other scientists and environmentalists, founded the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Yannacone’s partnership with Wurster during this trial led to a series of legal actions across the US throughout the late 1960s.
Building on the strategy employed in the Suffolk case, the EDF was the first environmental organization to focus primarily on litigation, earning it a reputation as “militant.” The group sought to persuade the courts that environmental protection was a matter of equity and a Constitutional right and aimed to establish a coherent body of environmental law through legal precedents.
Central to the EDF’s mission was Yannacone’s integration of multidisciplinary scientific research with legal activism. As general counsel, he worked with Wurster and the EDF’s scientific advisory committee to recruit over 200 scientific experts to support legal cases with robust evidence.
The EDF launched its activities with lawsuits filed by Yannacone against DDT and other persistent pesticides in Michigan and Wisconsin, and an air pollution lawsuit in Montana, often hurriedly drafting briefs while traveling. His efforts in leading these actions brought the organization national prominence, particularly with the Wisconsin hearings.
The National Audubon Society threw its support behind EDF early on. However, some "conservationist" groups were critical of the EDF’s approach, urging more conservative methods, such as influencing policy and legislation. David Brower, director of the Sierra Club, one of the most prominent environmentalist groups at that time, said he thought the EDF’s approach was overly aggressive. “I think there needs to be more consultation with some people who are older and stuffier,” he told Science Magazine.
However, Yannacone and the EDF viewed the environmental crisis as too urgent for incremental reforms. In a 1967 speech to the National Audubon Society Annual Convention, Yannacone described the civil rights movement as a major inspiration for founding an “environmental defense fund.” Environmentalists, Yannacone said, should “look to the 50-year history of the human rights struggle… Somebody had to sue somebody before the legislature acted.” Yannacone’s rhetorical signature phrase, “Sue the bastards,” became the EDF’s unofficial motto.
Yannacone left the EDF in 1969 following disagreements over the organization’s long-term strategy. Some members sought a more moderated approach, particularly after the group applied for a grant from the Ford Foundation. Yannacone told the Long Island Press that some members were “embarrassed” by his confrontational style and saw it as a potential obstacle for securing funding. In an interview over two decades later, Wurster said that the EDF had abandoned Yannacone’s “Sue the Bastards” slogan in the interest of “respectability.” Nonetheless, Wurster acknowledged, “EDF would never have started without [Yannacone].”

## Dieldrin and DDT in Michigan

In the fall of 1967, Yannacone filed several actions in Michigan on behalf of the newly formed EDF. The first suit targeted nine municipalities in Western Michigan, later expanded to include 47 more, and aimed to halt the use of DDT against Dutch elm disease. Although the court denied the request, the action achieved substantial success when 50 out of 56 municipalities agreed to use alternative pesticides. Additionally, the statewide recommendation for DDT use was withdrawn.
A more contentious action involved a simultaneous suit in Michigan to prevent the state and federal Departments of Agriculture from dropping three tons of dieldrin on nearly 3,000 acres to combat a potential Japanese beetle outbreak. Yannacone argued that dieldrin would have a devastating effect on coho salmon in Lake Michigan.
Dieldrin defenders charged that “‘foreigners’ from New York were trying to dictate to Michigan agriculture.” Nevertheless, Yannacone’s repeated actions against persistent pesticides were showing results in rising public concern. The suit also sparked an unusual intra-administration conflict when Michigan’s Department of Conservation sided with Yannacone against the state’s Department of Agriculture.
Although a temporary injunction was granted, delaying the dieldrin application, the court later denied the request to halt the drop. But the delay pushed the planned application past the suitable weather window, preventing the drop for that year.
A three-judge panel on the Michigan Court of Appeals then agreed to hear evidence against dieldrin. Yannacone told the press this was all he ultimately sought — to let expert witnesses present the available science in open court for the public to judge it themselves. During his testimony, Wurster said that for every Japanese beetle killed by dieldrin, between 10 and 80 times as many other birds and mammals would also be killed. Other testimony later revealed that the “infestation” consisted of only 72 Japanese beetles.
While the appeals court ultimately denied the request for a permanent ban, DDT's harmful effects became clear to Michigan in events the following spring, which led the state to act on its own. The state's plans to stock its streams with coho salmon for its $100 million sport fishing tourism industry were jeopardized when a million coho salmon fry in state hatcheries were found dead from DDT exposure. This development, coupled with the ongoing DDT hearings in nearby Wisconsin, prompted swift action. The 90-member State Assembly voted unanimously to ban DDT, making Michigan the first state in the country to do so.

## The Wisconsin Hearings

The 1968 Wisconsin hearings on DDT brought the fight against persistent pesticides—and Yannacone himself—even greater national prominence. A unique Wisconsin law allowed residents to seek declaratory judgments from state agencies on their governing statutes, which offered Yannacone the best chance to methodically present the full scientific evidence against DDT to the nation.
Lorrie Otto, a Milwaukee environmental activist and writer, initiated a petition to Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), seeking a ruling on whether DDT was a pollutant under the state’s water quality standards. Otto and a number of environmental groups, including the Citizens Natural Resource Association (CNRA) and the Wisconsin chapter of the Izaak Walton League, then brought Yannacone and the EDF to make the case against the pesticide.
With meticulous planning together with Charles Wurster and other EDF activists, Yannacone and his team assembled a diverse array of scientific experts, including entomologists, ornithologists, and ecologists, to reveal the pesticide’s devastating effects on wildlife, particularly bird populations.
The Industry Task Force for DDT, a coalition of DDT manufacturers, along with Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, stood against the petition, dismissing opponents as “a bunch of goddam birdwatchers,” which would later prove to be a gross underestimation.
Presided over by examiner Maurice van Susteren, the hearings were quasi-judicial proceedings, subject to evidentiary rules and cross-examination. Setting the tone from the outset, Yannacone called Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, a passionate environmentalist, as his opening witness, and Nelson delivered an impassioned plea for curbing degradation of the world’s natural resources.
Yannacone’s scientific witnesses, vigorously prepared in grueling multi-hour sessions, presented an extraordinary grim reality. A wildlife ecologist described global catastrophic declines in various bird species due to DDT and other persistent pesticides. Another researcher demonstrated how even trace amounts of DDT disrupted calcium and estrogen metabolism, crippling wildlife reproduction. Together, they offered a near-irrefutable case of ecological devastation that had largely gone unnoticed by the public.
Casting DDT as more than just a wildlife threat, Yannacone also had scientists testify to its risks to humans. Goran Lofroth, a Swedish scientist, said infants were consuming DDT in their milk at levels twice the recommended safety threshold. A pharmacologist further testified that DDT had the potential to alter male sex hormones, prompting sensational news stories nationally, with headlines like “Scientist Fears DDT Can Cause Sex Change” and “DDT Termed Peril to the Sex Organs.”
In seeking to discredit government regulators, on whom the public relied for safety controls, Yannacone forced an admission from Harry Hays, the USDA’s director of pesticide registration, that his department did not conduct independent safety tests on DDT, relying solely on manufacturer data. A similar acknowledgement came from Ellsworth H. Fisher, a University of Wisconsin entomologist responsible for public pesticide education.
Louis A. McLean, the industry’s attorney, was an otherwise skilled litigator, but he often relied on personal attacks to discredit witnesses. Unprepared for the methodical scientific case Yannacone presented and lacking scientific advisers, he leaned even more heavily into his usual tactics, though Yannacone played it against him in one of the hearings’ more dramatic moments. Summoning him to the stand, Yannacone forced McLean to read an article McLean himself had written mocking DDT’s opponents as “cranks” obsessed with “sexual potency.”
The hearings gave Yannacone the stage he sought to make not only the legal case but also to put the science on open display for the public. The press found it irresistible, invariably highlighting Yannacone’s showmanship, referring to him as “flamboyant and aggressive,” “exuberantly ebullient,” the case’s “ringmaster,” with a technique “almost to perfection.”
By the time the hearings concluded, public sentiment saw DDT’s toxicity as thoroughly established. In summing up the public mood, a Madison attorney told the press, “They would have stoned John the Baptist on State Street if he had come out for DDT.”
The hearings took six months, with testimony heard from 32 witnesses. Though not a surprise, Yannacone’s philosophy of science-driven litigation received a resounding vindication with Van Susteren’s 1971 ruling, officially declaring DDT a water pollutant under Wisconsin law.

## Missoula Air Pollution

In the late 1960s, Yannacone filed the first “environmental” air pollution lawsuit in the US against a kraft paper mill in Missoula, Montana. The plant, operated by Hoerner Waldorf Corp., had become notorious for its harmful emissions, leading to increased childhood asthma and other health concerns. Yannacone, representing the EDF, charged the company with polluting the regional airshed, decreasing visibility, harming plants and the ecosystem, and emitting a foul odor across the Missoula Valley.
The lawsuit argued that the paper mill created a “nonnegotiable hazard” to citizens, invoking the public trust doctrine and Constitutional rights to natural resources “without diminution and degradation.” Yannacone called it “the perfect air-pollution test case.” Here, too, legal observers noted its “novel claims,” with the suit cast as pitting the public’s right to clean air against a company’s right to “cheaply dispose its waste” into the environment.
The lawsuit immediately galvanized local public opinion, with newspaper editorials supporting it even while asserting support for business. The Missoula Chamber of Commerce issued a policy statement backing new federal legislation for pollution control. Following the pattern in other cases, Yannacone achieved a substantial victory when Hoerner Waldorf, facing public outrage, announced immediate investment in cutting-edge pollution control technologies.
In August 1970, Judge Murray dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but he acknowledged the merit of the Constitutional arguments, writing in his ruling, “I have no difficulty in finding that the right to life and liberty and property are Constitutionally protected... surely a person’s health is what, in a most significant degree, sustains life.”
Despite the dismissal, the cautious judicial support for a Constitutional argument for environmental protection was a landmark ruling, with Yannacone and the EDF saying the case represented a breakthrough “from that standpoint alone.”

## Florissant Fossil Beds

Yannacone’s legal theories faced another significant test in the spring of 1969, when he led efforts to preserve the Florissant fossil beds in Colorado. Described by scientists as a “Rosetta Stone” of life on earth, the Oligocene-era lake beds contain a fossil record of more species of plants and insects than any other site in the world. A coalition led by paleobotanist Estella Leopold and botanist Beatrice Willard sought federal protection for the 6,000-acre site. A master plan for a national monument was approved, and a bill had already passed in the US Senate. A vote in the House was imminent, facing little opposition.
However, in May, before Congress could finalize legislation, housing developers purchased nearly half the proposed site, and moved in to subdivide it for summer homes. In early July, bulldozers stood poised to begin razing the site.
Yannacone, asked by Leopold and Willard to help save the fossil beds, filed a lawsuit to stop construction on the site, arguing the government had a duty to protect it for the people as a “national natural resource treasure.” As in many of his other environmental cases, Yannacone invoked the public trust doctrine and the Ninth Amendment to argue that the government had a duty to protect the site on behalf of the people for “the full benefit, use, and enjoyment of an irreplaceable natural resource.”
On July 9, Judge O. Hatfield Chilson acknowledged that preserving the fossil beds was important, but nonetheless denied a temporary restraining order, saying he had no authority to rescind the owners’ property rights. A full trial was scheduled for July 29. After the developers announced construction would begin within days, Yannacone managed to get an emergency hearing the next day before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
When questioned about the legal basis for halting construction, Yannacone asked the appellate judges, “If someone had found the original Constitution of the United States buried on his land and then wanted to use it to mop a stain on the floor, is there any doubt they could be restrained?”
One of the judges acknowledged that in that case he would likely have issued a restraining order, which allowed Yannacone to press the argument that whatever precedent he would apply there, should be applied here. Calling the site “a record written by the hand of God,” Yannacone held up a fossilized palm leaf to the judges, saying, “To sacrifice this 34-million-year-old record for 30-year mortgages… is like wrapping fish with the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
The appeals court issued a temporary restraining order, which they ordered extended until July 29, when the full case would be heard — an unusual exception to the usual 10-day limit. Yannacone’s best hope was still for Congress to act, as the restraining order would expire July 29 at midnight. But on July 21, when an approved bill on the national monument was finally released from committee, a floor vote wasn’t scheduled until August 4. On July 29, the scheduled trial began before Judge Chilson, who, by mid-day, issued a previously prepared ruling to deny the injunction and dismiss the case.
Seeking an emergency same-day appeal before the Tenth Circuit, Yannacone had to convince Judge Jean S. Breitenstein, one of the appellate judges, to grant the application for a hearing. When Breitenstein hesitated, Yannacone drew on earlier testimony from John Ten Eyck, a Colorado state official, that a national monument would bring $64 million in economic benefits to the state. As Yannacone put it, “If someone tried to steal $64 million from Colorado a hundred years ago, they’d have hung the bastard. So why are we arguing now?” Breitenstein granted the application.
Arguing later that day before the full appeals court, Yannacone presented his key arguments from the public trust doctrine and the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, adding for emphasis that the national monument bill had passed in the Senate and was all but assured passage in the House. President Nixon had indicated he would sign it. The court, Yannacone said, was all but obligated to halt destruction of the site so as to aid in “the orderly operations of the Legislative and Executive branches.”
In a stunning victory for Yannacone, the court upheld the restraining order indefinitely, effectively prohibiting construction on the site until Congress acted. On August 4, the bill passed unanimously through Congress, and President Nixon signed it a few days later, creating the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument.
The case divided opinion among legal scholars. According to environmental lawyer Zygmunt Plater, “The argument Victor Yannacone made for the restraining order was bold and innovative. It was also without precedent.” Law professor William H. Rodgers was more skeptical, writing that while Yannacone’s arguments were bold and creative, it was his “sheer chutzpah” that succeeded. “Yannacone had no theory and he had no law,” Rodgers wrote, but used his “rashness” to offer an argument that was “a figment of his imagination.”
Other legal scholars found the case highly significant, and praised Yannacone’s persistence and the cases's astonishing outcome. Prominent legal scholar Joseph Sax wrote that the appellate court clearly believed the public interest justified interfering with private property rights, even though no explicit statute existed for it, which made this case “one of the most extraordinary lawsuits yet to arise in the area of environmental litigation.” Yannacone himself countered that his arguments had both theory and law, resting on centuries of natural law and equity jurisprudence, and in his view, the appellate court’s decision validated his argument.
What remained undisputed was the effectiveness of Yannacone’s argument. As Leopold, the paleontologist who had turned to Yannacone for help, wrote, “On Yannacone’s creative argument hung the fate of the fossil beds.”
In March 1970, Yannacone received the National Wildlife Federation’s National Distinguished Service Conservation Award, known as the “Connies,” for his efforts in the Florissant case and its impact on the emerging field of environmental law.

# Agent Orange Class Action Lawsuit

In 1979, Yannacone led a landmark case that was perhaps the most prominent of his career, a class action lawsuit against seven chemical manufacturers on behalf of Vietnam combat veterans exposed to Agent Orange, a dioxin-contaminated defoliant used during the war. The litigation, which sought creation of a trust fund from the current earnings of the corporate war contractors, eventually involved over 20,000 named plaintiffs and over 1,200 legal firms, and became the largest and most complex legal action in the US at that time.

## Origins

The case began with Paul Reutershan, an Army combat veteran diagnosed with terminal cancer at 28, who believed his illness was caused by Agent Orange exposure. During his last months, Reutershan filed a $10 million lawsuit against Dow Chemical, one of the military’s major Agent Orange suppliers. After his death, Reutershan’s attorneys, family, and supporters sought out Yannacone to continue litigating the case.
The herbicide, named for the orange stripe on its barrels, was sprayed in massive quantities across Vietnam to defoliate forests and expose enemy troops. Unbeknownst to servicemembers, Agent Orange was contaminated with TCDD (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), a form of dioxin later described by the EPA and others as “the most toxic small molecule known to man.” Many veterans exposed to the chemical later suffered serious health issues, including cancers and neurological conditions, with many of their wives suffering miscarriages and children born with severe polygenetic birth defects.
Initially reluctant, Yannacone was persuaded by Reutershan’s fellow activist and veteran Frank McCarthy, who described the suffering of veterans and families, the government’s refusal to acknowledge the chemical’s harms, the veterans’ political impotence, and the widespread public indifference to their plight. The systemic issues made the case align with the public interest litigation Yannacone had pursued over the course of his career.
Adding a handful more veterans to the lawsuit and naming six more chemical companies as defendants, Yannacone refiled it as a class action, asking the court to establish a trust fund financed by the defendants’ earnings to provide compensation and medical care for affected veterans and their families. It also sought to hold corporations to account as trustees of public health and safety with “a fiduciary responsibility to the public” that used or was exposed to their products.
The case quickly gained media coverage, and Yannacone’s office was soon inundated with calls from veterans and their widows seeking to join the lawsuit. Within a week, there were more than a hundred plaintiffs, and thousands more were added as the litigation progressed. Yannacone traveled the country speaking to veterans and their families, and was particularly moved by children born with severe deformities, such as missing or defective limbs, congenital heart problems, and abnormalities in their reproductive systems.

## Strategy and Complexity

Some legal observers were doubtful of Yannacone’s strategy, given the veterans’ disparate health issues. Combining tort law with class action was a tactic never before used in federal courts. However, Yannacone claimed it was the only path to an equitable remedy for all victims, given the systemic nature of dioxin exposure and its potential for latent harm. “If left to the vagaries of each jurisdiction, the results would be predictably chaotic and patently unjust,” he argued.
The first challenge was consolidating over 600 lawsuits involving hundreds of law firms across the country, a feat Yannacone accomplished over several months following the filing. To manage the case’s scale, Yannacone formed a special consortium of attorneys to act as plaintiffs’ representatives, with the bulk of the daily work run out of Yannacone’s small Patchogue office.
A more daunting hurdle was proving causation and fault, given the limited scientific evidence on dioxin’s effects at the time. Since the government refused to conduct scientific studies on the chemical’s effects, Yannacone told his legal team they would likely have to do their own epidemiological studies—a monumental undertaking.
Yannacone’s wife Carol, a biologist with a background in medical physics, played a particularly significant role in gathering biological evidence linking Agent Orange exposure to long-term health effects. In addition, Yannacone hired a software engineer to create a relational database system to track plaintiffs’ medical histories, exposure levels, and claims—a novel solution for a small firm at that time.
To address the case’s legal and scientific complexity, Yannacone devised a three-phase trial plan: proving the company was at fault for withholding vital information about the chemical’s toxicity; scientifically proving the chemical’s “generic causation” on human health; and determining “proximate causation” and individual damage claims in each of the plaintiffs’ home jurisdictions.
In May 1983, Judge George C. Pratt, who had been assigned to the case, approved of Yannacone’s three-trial plan and ruled the case could proceed as a federal class action.

## A Veterans’ Ally

For Yannacone, there was also another goal: he wanted to restore dignity to the veterans, whom he saw as unfairly maligned by the public. “By getting their day in court,” he said, “[veterans] could undo their image of being baby killers and lunatic murderers.”
Yannacone and his wife Carol also provided strong emotional support to the veterans and their families, many of whom saw the Yannacones as their only allies. Veterans helping with the case often camped out at the small Patchogue office, which was in the same building as the Yannacones’ residence.
The Yannacones grew particularly close to Michael and Maureen Ryan, whose 8-year-old daughter Kerry, born with 18 different birth defects including missing limbs and deformed vital organs, was a representative plaintiff as a veteran’s child victim. The Yannacones’ own 7-year-old daughter, Claire, became friends with Kerry, and would often accompany her during courtroom sessions or at Congressional hearings.

## Mounting Challenges

Throughout the early 1980s, the chemical companies denied Agent Orange’s toxic effects, with Dow president Paul F. Oreffice appearing on NBC’s Today show in March 1983, saying, “There is absolutely no evidence of dioxin doing any damage to humans,” except, he conceded, a minor rash.
However, internal documents revealed that the companies were well aware of the chemical’s risks for decades. One Dow Chemical memo from 1965 acknowledged the herbicide as “exceptionally toxic” and warned that “fatalities have been reported.” A memo from a company toxicology director warned that if the information were leaked to the public, the situation might “explode.”
The companies also invoked the “government contractor defense,” claiming they had merely produced the product to government specifications. In comments to the press, Yannacone said the last group to claim that defense was “hung collectively” at Nuremberg.
At the same time, tensions were rising among Yannacone’s legal team due to his forceful leadership style and uncompromising strategy. Some team members preferred more traditional methods, which Yannacone criticized as overly cautious and lacking the urgency or creativity needed to litigate the case.
In late 1983, Judge Pratt, elevated to the Court of Appeals, was replaced by Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who brought a markedly different approach, emphasizing the need for a speedy resolution. Representation of the veterans was transferred to a court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Management Committee (PMC).
The PMC took their cue from Judge Weinstein, who expressed doubts about the strength of the case, and largely abandoned Yannacone’s strategy. Facing fierce internal disagreements and rising costs to his small firm, Yannacone withdrew from the case at the end of 1983.

## Outcome

In May 1984, under strong pressure from Judge Weinstein, the parties agreed to a $180 million settlement, the largest mass tort settlement in US history at that time. The case concluded in 1988, with the $180 million grown to $240 million through investments.
Yannacone, who was not involved with the settlement, criticized it as “chump change” and “grossly insufficient” and argued that it failed to address long-term systemic issues associated with Agent Orange exposure. Many veterans also saw the compensation as inadequate, believing the PMC prioritized their own financial reward over the veterans’ interests. Many also expressed outrage that Yannacone had been sidelined, believing he had been their only true ally.
Still, Yannacone acknowledged that, at least symbolically, the settlement was a victory for the veterans, telling a reporter, “A quarter of a billion dollars is one hell of an admission.”
Despite withdrawing from the case before its conclusion, Yannacone’s legal strategies had lasting impact in reshaping mass tort litigation in the US. The case also led to several pieces of landmark Congressional legislation on veterans’ behalf, including the Veterans’ Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984 and the pivotal Agent Orange Act of 1991, among others.

# Environmental Law

Yannacone has been described as “the father of environmental law” and played a significant role in shaping the field during its formative years in the 1960s. His pioneering lawsuits, often regarded as landmark cases, have been widely cited by legal scholars for their impact on the development of environmental law as a distinct discipline. Yannacone also contributed to the institutionalization of the field, serving as chairman of the Environmental Law Committee of the American Bar Association.
In 1966, Yannacone’s lawsuit against the Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission was one of the first legal cases to frame environmental protection as a matter of public trust and Constitutional rights. Reporting on it at the time, The New York Times described the case as part of the emerging framework of “environmental law,” a coinage attributed to Yannacone and which was the first recorded use of the term in major media.
Yannacone’s argument—that the public has a Constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment—was initially controversial but has since gained recognition among legal scholars as a cornerstone principle for protecting natural resources, with amendments to a number of state constitutions declaring that right unambiguously.

## Emerging Legal Field

In the late 1960s, environmental law was not yet a defined field, and legal cases addressing “environmental” harm were unheard of. Ecology as a science was still developing, and its findings were not always conclusive enough to inform legal decisions. Early lawsuits often faced skepticism due to the uncertain links between human activities and ecological consequences. However, growing public concern over environmental degradation spurred the evolution of environmental law, described by one commentator at the time as being under “rapid and imaginative development.”
At the time, frameworks to address environmental harm were limited, requiring attorneys to rely on creative interpretations of existing laws. During this formative period, Yannacone emerged as a leading voice for a new legal approach. “It’s about time the legal profession got some ecological sophistication.... We have to invent causes of action,” Yannacone said in a speech at a 1969 gathering of “conservation lawyers,” and urged attorneys to be more imaginative and “find new legal rules.”
Yannacone’s lawsuits established many of the core principles in the field’s emerging legal discourse, including its foundation in the public trust doctrine and the Constitutional right to a protected environment. As the field developed, the legal community began to coalesce around these ideas, and lawyers and academics began to recognize environmental law’s parallels to civil rights litigation.
In 1972, Yannacone published Environmental Rights and Remedies the first textbook on environmental law and a foundational treatise on the subject. He also established the Environmental Law Section of the American Bar Association. Other early reference works on environmental law, such as the 1971 Environmental Law Handbook by Norman L. Landau and Paul D. Rheingold, credited Yannacone’s pioneering work in establishing the field.

## Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine, rooted in ancient Roman law and later English and American common law, asserts that natural resources like harbors, riverbeds, seashores, and air are the common property of the people. These resources are to be held in trust by the government, which is tasked with safeguarding these resources against abuse or degradation.
Before the 1960s, US courts rarely invoked the doctrine, doing so primarily only to protect riverbeds. Yannacone was among the first to advance it as a principle for environmental law, invoking it in cases against DDT in New York and Michigan, air pollution in Montana, and fossil preservation in Colorado. Yannacone also called for extending the doctrine to forests, oil and mineral deposits, geological formations, and other unique or irreplaceable resources of public significance. These applications were considered novel at first but later gained broad acceptance.
Yannacone’s use of the doctrine in the Missoula lawsuit against the Hoerner Waldorf paper mill was especially influential in shaping its environmental application. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, other environmental lawyers took up similar arguments, solidifying the doctrine’s place in the environmental legal field. The principle has since been widely recognized as foundational for preserving natural resources for public benefit.

## Ninth Amendment & Constitutional Rights

Yannacone advanced the principle that citizens have a Constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. His theory drew principally on the Ninth Amendment, which says that the enumeration of certain rights in the US Constitution does not deny or disparage other unenumerated rights retained by the people. Yannacone has argued that this Amendment guarantees the “self-evident” and “unalienable” right to life-sustaining resources, such as clean air and potable water, and an environment conducive to human health and well-being.
Key additional components to the Constitutional argument were the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. These clauses provided further protections by asserting that the property of the public, as established by the public trust doctrine and its rights guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment, could not be appropriated or degraded without due consideration, and were deserving of the same protections afforded to private property.
In the late 1960s, some described the Constitutional claim as a “novel doctrine” that courts were unlikely to accept, with some even sharply dismissing it as “too farfetched.” Others, however, noted its potential to set a precedent akin to civil rights litigation and compared it to the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut that relied on the Ninth Amendment to establish the unenumerated right to marital privacy.

# Litigation Philosophy

   Yannacone was a brilliant tactician, but from the beginning he had no illusions that litigation would produce resounding legal victories. His maverick motto was “Sue the Bastards,” and he envisioned his lawsuits as show trials to dramatize environmental truths that would ultimately compel members of the legislative and executive branches of government to act. He was willing to lose court decisions if his cause prevailed in the court of public opinion.
Yannacone viewed litigation as the most effective tool for addressing environmental crises and driving systemic change. He believed that courtrooms provided a unique venue where powerful interests could be held accountable, and where evidence could be rigorously tested to expose environmental harms. In a 1967 speech to the National Audubon Society, Yannacone asserted, “Litigation seems to be the only way… to focus the attention of our legislators on the basic problems of human existence, short of bloody revolution.”
Inspired by the successes of the civil rights and labor movements, Yannacone emphasized that environmentalists must similarly be willing to “sue the bastards” to achieve meaningful progress. This slogan, which became synonymous with his approach, underscored his aggressive strategy to compel corporate polluters and government agencies to answer for their role in environmental degradation. Litigation, Yannacone said in a 1969 interview, is like a club: “It’s got to be used or it becomes a deadweight.”
From the outset, Yannacone understood that achieving conclusive courtroom victories could not be the primary goal of his litigation. Instead, he saw lawsuits as mechanisms for broader societal impact, aiming to compel legislative and administrative action by framing issues for public debate. As former US Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall observed, “He was willing to lose court decisions if his cause prevailed in the court of public opinion.”

## Legal Pathways

In comparing pathways to environmental protection—such as legislative action, administrative processes, and personal damage suits—Yannacone stressed the importance of broad, class-action litigation, viewing it as the most effective approach, given the urgency and systemic nature of ecological crises. As he noted during a 1969 forum discussion in Boston, “Experience has shown that litigation is the only non-violent civilized way to secure immediate consideration of the basic questions of human rights.”
In Yannacone’s view, alternative methods were not likely to be effective. Regarding using the legislative processes, he described it as “slow and ponderous” and therefore inadequate for addressing immediate environmental threats. While legislators held prolonged deliberations, he argued, vital natural resources were already suffering “serious, permanent, and irreparable harm.”
He was equally critical of administrative agencies, which he perceived as biased in favor of the industries they were tasked with regulating. Yannacone claimed that these agencies often prioritized corporate interests over the public good, lacked ecological expertise, and operated without adequate transparency. As he told reporters during the Wisconsin DDT hearings, “Only in a courtroom can bureaucratic hogwash be tested in the crucible of cross-examination.”
Yannacone also dismissed personal damage suits as reactive, focusing on past harms rather than systemic issues to prevent future damage, and could not achieve the broad environmental reforms he considered necessary.
In litigation, Yannacone saw the most powerful pathway for systemic change. Courtrooms allowed scientific evidence and expert testimony to be presented openly, forcing corporations and governments to confront the consequences of their actions. Litigation also highlighted the inadequacies of other pathways, compelling legislative and administrative reforms.

## Courts of Equity

Central to Yannacone’s litigation philosophy was his principled faith in equity jurisprudence, which provided judicial remedies for harms unaddressed in existing statutes. This was critical for confronting new conditions created by unregulated industrial activities. As Yannacone argued, environmental degradation violated public trust and demanded judicial intervention as a matter of equity and fairness, often quoting the maxim, “Equity allows no wrong without a remedy.”
Contrasting the impartiality of courts with the perceived biases of administrative agencies, Yannacone stated, “A court of equity is the only place to take effective action against the polluters and despoilers.” He saw equity courts as a vital safeguard against corporate and government collusion that harmed the environment, describing them as the last line of defense for public interests.
Yannacone also emphasized the need for legal creativity in environmental litigation to address challenges posed by industrial expansion. When existing statutes failed to protect public interests, he argued, citizens had a right to demand change. Invoking the courtroom as the modern arena for “trial by combat,” Yannacone frequently said, “Litigation is the civilized alternative to bloody revolution.”

## Public Awareness: “Winning While Losing”

For Yannacone, litigation often served as an indirect tool for advancing environmental causes, particularly by raising public awareness. Litigating matters in open court mobilized public opinion about ongoing harms, which, in turn, pressured policymakers to enact legislative and regulatory changes. This strategy came to be known as Yannacone’s “winning while losing” approach, which he honed during his early lawsuits for the EDF.
Yannacone believed that lawsuits could present compelling scientific evidence and expert testimony to trigger public debate. “Litigation frames the issues in a way that no other approach can,” he argued, highlighting the adversarial process as uniquely suited for exposing environmental truths and forcing defendants to justify their actions under scrutiny.
Recognizing the power of media, Yannacone leveraged press coverage to amplify the impact of his lawsuits. High-profile cases, such as the Suffolk County lawsuit and the Wisconsin DDT hearings, helped educate the public about the dangers of pesticides. These campaigns transformed courtroom battles into catalysts for broader policy change.

## “Sue the Bastards”: A Philosophy and Rallying Cry

Yannacone’s slogan, “Sue the Bastards,” became a defining feature of his legal philosophy and a rallying cry for environmental activists. According to the Yale Book of Quotations, Yannacone coined the slogan, which gained prominence through his public speeches and high-profile cases. Encapsulating his aggressive approach to litigation, the phrase resonated widely and captured the urgency of holding accountable those who degraded the natural resources that belonged to the public. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Patrick Strickler called it Yannacone’s “rhetorical signature,” reflecting his combative personality and commitment to public interest litigation.
In another formulation, Yannacone was often quoted as saying, “Don’t just sit there and bitch—sue somebody!” In repeatedly asserting that litigation was the most effective means of achieving broad-based systemic change, he urged environmentalists and other activists to embrace aggressive legal action as an essential tool for the public interest.

# General Legal Practice

Even as Yannacone worked on public interest litigation, his primary legal practice remained that which he had established with his father, focusing on workers’ compensation and personal injury law. Managing up to 2,500 cases annually, often requiring dozens of court appearances in a single day, Yannacone said the practice honed his skills in litigation and cross-examining medical professionals. These experiences sharpened his ability to adapt quickly in the courtroom, a skill he said he carried into his more complex legal battles.
Yannacone’s meticulous preparation for litigation, which he attributed to his father’s influence, was bolstered by his extensive study of scientific and medical literature, giving him a strong foundation for his cases. His practice secured significant victories, including early rulings linking workplace chemical exposure to diseases like leukemia. He also tackled unconventional claims, such as one where a Polish deaf mute alleged that workplace harassment via sign language caused his ulcer. Evident in many of his cases was a commitment to pushing legal boundaries in pursuit of justice for injured workers, particularly the marginalized.
Yannacone’s work sometimes extended beyond litigation. One example was his assistance to Linda Boreman, better known as Linda Lovelace, who sought his advice after escaping years of abuse by her first husband, Chuck Traynor. Forced into pornography and sex work for Traynor’s financial benefit while remaining destitute herself, Boreman consulted Yannacone about suing Traynor. Yannacone instead advised her to reclaim her narrative by publishing a memoir and persuaded journalist Mike McGrady, a highly regarded author and columnist, to co-write her books.
In attempting to persuade McGrady, Yannacone enlisted a team of lawyers and psychiatrists to assess Boreman’s credibility, and had her sit for an 11-hour lie detector test administered by Nat Laurendi, a famed polygraph expert. This collaboration resulted in her memoirs, Ordeal and Out of Bondage, which told Boreman’s story of coercion and survival. Beyond professional guidance, Yannacone and his wife Carol supported Boreman with food for her and her infant child, with Yannacone often dropping off cases of Campbell’s soup at her home to ensure they always had something to eat.

# Local Politics and Activism
## Patchogue Village Justice

Yannacone served as Patchogue Village Justice from 1994 to 2002, presiding over more than 8,000 cases. Among the notable incidents during his tenure was a December 1997 emergency court session held at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital. This session addressed the case of Robert Oidring, a tuberculosis patient who had stopped taking his medications. Yannacone conducted the hearing via speakerphone to minimize exposure risks, ultimately ordering Oidring into custody to protect public health. “In the old days you’d lock someone with TB up,” he said in comments to the press. “Today you can’t even get them to stay in the hospital.”
Yannacone also held a memorial service in the courtroom for Eddie Colton, a local individual who struggled with chronic alcoholism. Yannacone symbolically dismissed Colton’s outstanding warrants during the service, reflecting on systemic failures to provide adequate support to those struggling with alcohol abuse. He described Colton as “charming as a drunk, no matter how dirty and disheveled a drunk he was,” and having “a mind and a personality and a sense of humor.”

## Local Governance

Yannacone regularly attended Patchogue Village and Brookhaven Town board meetings, urging officials to address issues such as unenforced zoning laws, inadequate housing regulations, and contaminated water supplies. His outspoken style attracted widespread public attention, drawing large numbers of residents to the meetings and encouraging stronger public engagement with local government. Critics labeled his approach theatrical, with one describing the meetings as a “circus,” while supporters called him “the voice of the people.”
During one 1992 village board meeting, Yannacone criticized local zoning codes as “unenforceable,” proposing stricter health and fire regulations to address slum conditions, urging residents to “take this community back one block at a time” and offering to draft new ordinances pro bono. The Long Island Advance described his speech as “perhaps the most important speech to be made in Patchogue in more than a decade.”

## Arts & Culture Advocacy

Yannacone also advocated for greater support for local arts and cultural endeavors and for more public funding for artists and musicians. He founded the Brookhaven Town Symphony Orchestra, the first municipal orchestra in the nation, as well as the Brookhaven Town Council on the Arts, which fostered various cultural initiatives and youth engagement.
During the 1960s, Yannacone represented hundreds of professional musicians as counsel for the Long Island Musicians Society. His criticism of a proposed Suffolk County cultural center, which he called a “white elephant for fire department bands,” earned him the New York Times’s memorable moniker as “an angry bassoonist.” Yannacone claimed county funds would be better spent enabling a struggling violinist truck driver to “give up the truck and stick with his fiddle.”
In the 1990s, Yannacone was instrumental in preserving the landmark jazz club Sonny’s Place via the creation of the Sonny’s Place Foundation, after the club’s owner, Sonny Meyerowitz, was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Meyerowitz had a history of providing food and assistance to struggling musicians, including those dealing with drug problems. Yannacone compared Meyerowitz to Abe Saperstein, founder of the Harlem Globetrotters, for his role in creating opportunities for African American artists.

# Musical Career

Yannacone also performed frequently as a professional musician, playing the baritone saxophone, and occasionally covering parts written for rare historical instruments like the ophicleide and the serpent. The ophicleide, a precursor to the tuba, and the serpent, an early bass horn, were featured in select performances with the Brookhaven Symphony Orchestra. Yannacone also performed with the Symphonic Band of Suffolk and Big Band East.
Throughout his career, Yannacone kept a baritone saxophone in his law office. After developing severe arthritis, which curtailed his ability to play, Yannacone passed on his saxophone to his grandson Ronan at the age of 17.

# Personal Life

In 1958, Yannacone married his wife Carol, a biologist and science teacher who played a central role in his long career in environmental advocacy. They lived in Patchogue, New York, from 1958 until 2019. The Yannacones have two children: Claire Yannacone Peers, who lives in Patchogue with her husband Nobby Peers and their two children, Ronan and Tegan, and Victor J. Yannacone III, who lives in Maui, Hawaii.
During a 2019 Thanksgiving visit by Yannacone and his wife to their son in Maui, their stay became permanent due to the onset of COVID-19 and Yannacone’s worsening arthritis, which limited his ability to travel. He recently told a reporter that he was now “stuck in paradise.”

# Selected Works
## Book

* Yannacone, Victor J., Jr.; Cohen, Bernard S.; Davison, Steven G. (1972). Environmental Rights and Remedies. The Lawyer Co-operative Publishing. ISBN 978-0-686-14502-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

## Notable Articles

* Yannacone, Victor J., Jr. (1970). "Sue the Bastards" (PDF). Earth Day, the Beginning: A Guide for Survival. Bantam Books. pp. 190–215.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1970). "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969". Environmental Law. 1 (1): 8–32. Retrieved 11 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1971). "Scientists in the Courtroom". Science and the Future of Man. MIT Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1974). "The Environment and the Law". The Forum (Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law, American Bar Association). 9 (5). American Bar Association: 795–827. ISSN 0015-8356. Retrieved 26 October 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1 January 1974). "Agricultural Lands, Fertile Soils, Popular Sovereignty, the Trust Doctrine, Environmental Impact Assessment and the Natural Law". North Dakota Law Review. 51 (3): 615–654. ISSN 0029-2745. Retrieved 11 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ———; Kavenagh, W. Keith; Searcy, Margie T. (February 1982). "Agent Orange Litigation: Cooperation for Victory" (PDF). TRIAL Magazine: 44–50.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1 December 1999). "Science, Ethics, and Scientific Ethics in the Modern World". Environmental Geosciences. 6 (4): 164–171. ISSN 1075-9565. Retrieved 30 October 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

## Other Publications

* Yannacone, Victor J, Jr.; Harrison, H. L.; Mitchell, J. W.; Loucks, O. L.; Parkhurst, D. F.; Tracy, C. R.; Watts, D. G. (30 October 1970). "Systems Studies of DDT Transport". Science. 170 (3957). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 503–508. doi:10.1126/science.170.3957.503. Retrieved 28 October 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1970). "Plaintiffs' Brief in the Project Rulison Case". Cornell Law Review. 55 (5): 761–803. ISSN 0010-8847. Retrieved 17 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ———; Grafton, Samuel (1972). "Children or Chattels". Trial Lawyers Quarterly. 8 (3–4): 10–28. Retrieved 27 October 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (February 1973). "A Veteran Views the Pollution Fight" (PDF). Juris Doctor: 28–29. Retrieved 17 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (October 1973). "The Environmental Audit: Necessary protection for the Investor, Developer or Property Manager". National Real Estate Investor. Retrieved 17 December 2024.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1974). Energy Crisis: Danger and Opportunity. West Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8299-0013-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (1 September 1974). "How Much Geology is Relevant to an Eighteen Year Old Voter?". Journal of Geological Education. National Association of Geology Teachers. Retrieved 26 October 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (Winter 1978). "Property and Stewardship—Private Property Plus Public Interest Equals Social Property". South Dakota Law Review: 71–148. Retrieved 17 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ———; Kavenagh, W. Keith; Searcy, Margie T. (December 1981). "Dioxin: Molecule of Death" (PDF). TRIAL Magazine. Retrieved 17 December 2024.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (Summer 1982). "Chemical Defoliation or Chemical Warfare?". Toledo Law Review. 13 (4): 1260–1270.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ———; Watson, R.E. (February 1987). "A New County Should Bloom in Brookhaven" (PDF). Newsday. Retrieved 11 December 2024.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (March 2016). "'Technological Competence,' a New Ethical Obligation". Suffolk Lawyer. 31 (8): 13, 22. Retrieved 11 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ——— (2002). "Water and Energy, the Basis for Human Society: Are They Globally Sustainable Through the 21st Century?" (PDF). Sustainability of Energy and Water through the 21st Century. Kansas Geological Survey.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

# References

* ↑ Rodgers (1999), p. 3: “Among attorneys, Vic Yannacone's initiative in 1969 to save Colorado's Florrisant Fossil Beds deserves mention in the risk-taking category. As described in a leading casebook on environmental law, Yannacone's success in winning an injunction in the Tenth Circuit was sheer chutzpah.”
* 1 2 3 Menand (2007), p. 187, citing Shapiro (2021) harvp error: no target: CITEREFShapiro2021 (help): “We owe the useful phrase ‘Sue the bastards!’ to Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., identified as a U.S. lawyer and environmentalist.”
* 1 2 3 Short, Evelyn (27 May 1979). "The Bitter Taste of Agent Orange" (PDF). The Reporter Dispatch. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Grossman, Karl (2 January 2022). "Suffolk Closeup: A pioneer in creating laws protecting the environment". Shelter Island Reporter. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Murphy, Patrick E. (1971). "Environmental Law: New Legal Concepts in the Antipollution Fight". Missouri Law Review. 36 (1): 78. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rogin, Gilbert (3 February 1969). "All He Wants Is To Save The World". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Weber, Mary Tynan (October 1979). "Victor Yannacone vs. the World of Chemistry: Suffolk Profile" (PDF). Suffolk. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Molloy, Kevin (14 January 1993). "Victor Yannacone, Jr. Named Advance Man of the Year" (PDF). The Long Island Advance. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Flammer, Joe (7 February 1991). "An Historic Victory for Yannacone" (PDF). The Long Island Advance. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Kalish, Jon (April 1991). "Comp Family Dynasty Spans 3 Generations" (PDF). The National Law Journal. Retrieved 18 Dec 2024.
* 1 2 Kalish, Jon (13 April 2003). "Yannacone 2-Way". Living on Earth. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Henkin, Harmon; Merta, Martin; Staples, James M. (1971). The Environment, the Establishment, and the Law. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-395-11070-6.
* 1 2 3 4 Schuck, Peter H. (15 March 1988). Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts. Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01026-0.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Griffin, Moira K. (March 1982). "Poisoned Patriotism" (PDF). Student Lawyer: 23–25, 51–53. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "Establishment of Brookhaven". Town of Brookhaven, New York. 2024. Retrieved 2 November 2024.
* ↑ Dongan, Thomas (1686). Dongan Patent for Brookhaven. Town of Brookhaven Website. Retrieved 2 November 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Moore, William G. (1985). "The Wisconsin Ban on DDT: Old Law, New Content" (PDF). The Gargoyle (3): 3–7. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Gould, Whitney (16 December 1968). "The DDT Fight: David vs. Goliath". The Capital Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Mooney, Frank (25 June 1972). "An Old-Timer in Legal Fight on Pollution" (PDF). New York Daily News. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 “Agricultural Lands,” 1974, p. 648, footnote 104: “Environmental Law and Environmental Litigation became recognized elements of our legal system in the Spring of 1966 when a suburban New York housewife brought an action on behalf of all the citizens of Suffolk County, New York, not only of this generation, but of those generations yet unborn, seeking equitable relief from a toxic insult to the community eco-system.”
* 1 2 3 4 Grossman, “Vic Yannacone: Father of Environmental Law” (2022): “Victor J. Yannacone Jr., the lawyer who coined the term and created the legal field of environmental law... during the litigation over DDT during the 1960s. Pioneered by Yannacone, it’s now a legal specialty globally.... The New York Times and other newspapers described it [then] as involving a new concept of law in their accounts of the case.”
* 1 2 3 4 Rodgers (2000), p. 14: “Professor R. Lisle Baker tells a story (possibly apocryphal) about Vic Yannacone and his invention of the term ‘environmental law’ in one of the early DDT cases. Yannacone took his cue from the objection of opposing counsel: ‘Your honor, how do I respond to this kind of claim? There’s no key number I can look it up under!’ Turning to Yannacone, the court replied: ‘Well, what does he look it up under?’ Responded Yannacone, with a surge of sudden and anxious insight: ‘Well, your honor, he could look it up under environmental law.’ The court, turning to opposing counsel: ‘Yes, why don’t you look it up under environmental law?’”
* ↑ Rodgers, William H. Jr. (1 January 2000). "The Most Creative Moments in the History of Environmental Law: "The Whats"". University of Illinois Law Review. 2000: 14. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Carter, Luther J. (1969). "Conservation Law I: Seeking a Breakthrough in the Courts". Science. 166 (3912): 1487–1491. doi:10.1126/science.166.3912.1487. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Yannacone, Victor J. Jr. (1971). "Scientists in the Courtroom". Science and the Future of Man. MIT Press.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Carter, Luther J. (22 December 1967). "Environmental Pollution: Scientists Go to Court". Science. 158 (3808). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1552–1556. doi:10.1126/science.158.3808.1552. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* ↑ Weber (1979): “That tendency… infuriates Yannacone’s detractors who complain he is a showman who plays to the press. There is no doubt of his flamboyance and occasional abrasiveness but there is also no doubt he does his homework and attracts talented people to help him.”
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dunlap, Thomas R. (1978). "DDT on Trial: The Wisconsin Hearing, 1968-1969". Wisconsin Magazine of History. 62 (1): 3. ISSN 1943-7366. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Grossman, Karl (7 November 2003). "An Environmental Pioneer". The Press of Manorville and the Moriches. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Pascal, John (29 April 1979). "Battling an Agent of Tragedy" (PDF). Newsday. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Lemann, Nicholas (8 April 2013). "The Fate of Earth Day". The New Yorker. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Tarlock, A. Dan (1 January 2010). "Environmental Law: Then and Now". Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 32 (1). Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. ISSN 1943-0000. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hill, Gladwin (14 September 1969). "Conservation Lawyers Move to Defend the "Quality of Living."". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Primack, J. R.; Von Hippel, Frank (1974). "The Battle Over Persistent Pesticides: From Rachel Carson to the Environmental Defense Fund" (PDF). Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena. Basic Books. pp. 128–142. ISBN 978-0-465-00090-6.
* 1 2 O’Shaughnessy, Patrick T. (November 2008). "Parachuting Cats and Crushed Eggs: The Controversy Over the Use of DDT to Control Malaria" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health. 98 (11): 1940–1948. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.122523. ISSN 1541-0048. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Wurster, Charles F. (25 June 2015). DDT Wars: Rescuing Our National Bird, Preventing Cancer, and Creating EDF. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190219413.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-021941-3.
* 1 2 Clines, Francis X. (30 November 1966). "Woman in Suffolk Sues Over DDT Use: Housewife Calls Insecticide Danger to Environment; Husband Acts as Attorney". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "DDT Wars and the Birth of EDF: An Interview with Founding Trustee Charles Wurster" (PDF). Environmental Defense Fund. 2015. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 "Toxic Chemicals and Citizen Activism". Give Earth a Chance: Environmental Activism in Michigan. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Grossman, Karl (27 May 2022). "Victor J. Yannacone, Jr.: Father Of Environmental Law". Fire Island News. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Duncan, Erika (14 May 1995). "Fostering Clean Air Through Environmental Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Sue The Bastards". TIME Magazine. 18 October 1971. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "Brief and Record Summary" (PDF). Yannacone v. Dennison. Misc.2d. Supreme Court, Suffolk County, NY. 30 Nov 1967. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 "Brief of Plaintiff on Equitable Remedies" (PDF). Yannacone v. Dennison. Misc.2d. Supreme Court, Suffolk County, NY. 30 November 1967. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Stern, Scott W. (12 June 2023). "Did Montana violate its residents' right to a clean environment?". The Washington Post.
* 1 2 3 4 5 "Conservation: A New Say in Court". TIME Magazine. 24 October 1969. Retrieved 9 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Carter, Luther J. (1969). "DDT: The Critics Attempt to Ban Its Use in Wisconsin". Science. 163 (3867): 548–551. doi:10.1126/science.163.3867.548. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Van Tol, Joan E. (April 1979). "The Public Trust Doctrine: A New Approach to Environmental Preservation". West Virginia Law Review. 81 (3). Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Sax, Joseph (1 January 1970). "The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention". Michigan Law Review. 68 (3): 471–566. ISSN 0026-2234. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Schroeder, Stanley W. (1971). "Pollution in Perspective: A Survey of the Federal Effort and the Case Approach". Natural Resources Lawyer. 4 (2). American Bar Association: 381–428. ISSN 0028-0747. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* ↑ "Court Rules Against DDT". The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 47 (4): 164–165. 1966. doi:10.2307/20165696. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Conis, Elena (2016). "Setting the Record Straight on DDT". BioScience. 66 (4): 329–331. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw021. ISSN 1525-3244. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Clines, Francis X. (2 December 1967). "Suit to Ban DDT in Suffolk County Is Dismissed". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "Ruling by Justice Stanislaw" (PDF). Yannacone v. Dennison. Misc.2d. Supreme Court, Suffolk County, NY. 30 November 1967. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Saha, Purbita (24 July 2015). "The Real Story Behind the War Against DDT: Charles Wurster pens a personal account of how the Environmental Defense Fund took down the most notorious pesticide in history". Audubon. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Benkelman, Susan (2 January 1991). "Using Science and Law To Give Nature a Hand" (PDF). Newsday. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
* ↑ Blair, Cynthia (26 August 2006). "1967: Environmental Defense Fund Founded on Long Island" (PDF). Newsday. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Carter, Luther J. (1969). "Environmental Defense Fund: Yannacone Out as Ringmaster". Science. 166 (3913): 1603. doi:10.1126/science.166.3913.1603. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Stern, Scott W. (15 March 2023). "The Lost Promise of Environmental Rights". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
* 1 2 "Audubon Unit Votes For Funds to Back Conservation Suits" (PDF). The New York Times. 1 Oct 1967. Retrieved 18 Dec 2024.
* 1 2 3 "Lawyer Drags Conservation Issues into Court" (PDF). National Observer. 22 April 1968. Retrieved 1 November 2024.
* 1 2 “Audubon Votes to Back Conservation Suits,” The New York Times, 1967: “[Yannacone] said such a defense fund ‘would be to conservation what the Legal Defense Fund of the National Association of Colored People has been to civil rights or the American Civil Liberties Union to civil liberties.’”
* 1 2 3 4 5 Yannacone, Victor John (1 December 1999). "Science, Ethics, and Scientific Ethics in the Modern World". Environmental Geosciences. 6 (4): 164–171. ISSN 1075-9565. Retrieved 30 October 2024.
* 1 2 Moore, Jason W. (15 May 2024). "The Fear and the Fix". The Baffler. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Flint, Jerry M. (12 November 1967). "Pesticide Fought in Michigan Suit: Court Will Weigh Scientific Evidence Against Dieldrin". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
* ↑ Flint, Jerry M. (23 November 1967). "New York Group Loses Its Fight To Block Pesticide in Michigan". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 T.D. (9 January 1987). "DDT on Trial: The Wisconsin Chapter" (PDF). Isthmus. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Yannacone, Victor J. Jr. (1970). "Sue the Bastards" (PDF). Earth Day, the Beginning: A Guide for Survival. Bantam Books. pp. 190–215.
* ↑ "DDT Termed Peril to the Sex Organs". The New York Times. 15 January 1969. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Carter, Luther J. (1969). "Conservation Law II: Scientists Play a Key Role in Court Suits". Science. 166 (3913): 1601–1606. doi:10.1126/science.166.3913.1601. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Dunlap (1978), p. 8: “Aggressive and flamboyant, he badgered witnesses, declaimed for the benefit of the court, and made sure that the newspaper reporters got a story each day. Yannacone was a skillful showman who kept the case before the public, but he was much more: he was an excellent lawyer.”
* 1 2 3 4 5 Yannacone, Victor J. Jr. (1974). "The Environment and the Law". The Forum (Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law, American Bar Association). 9 (5). American Bar Association: 795–827. ISSN 0015-8356. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mudd, Joseph E. (1971). "Environmental Defense Fund v. Hoerner Waldorf Corporation: Environment, Industry and Constitutional Rights". Montana Law Review. 32 (1). Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* 1 2 3 Curran, Denn (November 1968). "Two Groups combine to press anti-pollution suit" (PDF). Missoulian. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Bemiss, Clair W. (1972), Teachers Environmental Resource Unit: Industry: Iron/Steel & Pulp/Paper (PDF), Brevard County School Board, Cocoa, Fla., retrieved 19 November 2024
* 1 2 Curran, Denn (21 November 1968). "Local Clean Air Case May Have National Import" (PDF). Missoulian. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "Editorial: The Air Pollution Lawsuit" (PDF). Missoulian. 21 November 1968. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 "CC Takes Firm Pollution Stand: Clean Environment Community Goal" (PDF). Missoulian. November 1968. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hoerner Waldorf Corporation, The Environmental Law Reporter, retrieved 19 November 2024
* ↑ Gallagher, Carole L. (1997). "The Movement to Create an Environmental Bill of Rights: From Earth Day, 1970 to the Present". Fordham Environmental Law Journal. 9 (1). Fordham Environmental Law Review: 107–154. ISSN 1079-6657. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* 1 2 McChristal, Jim (April 1994). "A History of Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument: In Celebration of Preservations" (PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved 9 December 2024.
* ↑ Tucker, Richard (12 June 1969). "Fossil Beds—Land of Sequoias and Tsetse Flies" (PDF). Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* 1 2 Gould, Whitney (24 July 1969). "Scientists Lead Fight to Save Priceless Fossil Beds" (PDF). The Capital Times. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* ↑ "Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument". National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. Retrieved 27 October 2024.
* ↑ Miller, Char (2 March 2024). "Remembering Estella Leopold and Her Defense of the Eocene". Forest History Society. Retrieved 7 November 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Leopold, Estella B.; Meyer, Herbert W. (October 2012). Saved in Time: The Fight to Establish Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, Colorado. University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 978-0-8263-5236-1.
* 1 2 Keeley, James (4 July 1969). "Suit to Save Fossils Filed" (PDF). The Denver Post. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* ↑ White, Cody (17 November 2015). "A Tale of Two Tourist Traps: the Creation of Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument in Colorado". The Text Message: The Textual Records Division at the National Archives. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
* ↑ Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument: Master Plan. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. May 1967.
* ↑ "A Treasure in Danger". Science News. 21 June 1969. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* ↑ “A Treasure in Danger” (1969): “‘It is worth mentioning,’ says Dr. Richard C. Bradley, of Colorado College, ‘that we have here a most unusual circumstance, perhaps without precedent in recent legislative history: a proposal is being made to put a substantial piece of land under the protection of the National Park Service, and it stands virtually unopposed…. If this bill fails to pass, it will not be because the powerful lobbies were arrayed against it, but because this Congress, deeply involved as it is with the weightier issues of the day… could not seem to find the time to consider it.’”
* ↑ Viney, Mike (2012). "Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument" (PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Marsh, Susan (17 July 1966). "Preserving Colorados Rich Fossil Fields". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Yannacone, Victor J., Jr.; Cohen, Bernard S.; Davison, Steven G. (1972). "The Trust Doctrine". Environmental Rights and Remedies. The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company. pp. 18–46. ISBN 978-0-686-14502-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ↑ Miller, Char (4 December 2012). "Message from the Eocene: Re-reading the Florissant Fossil Beds". PBS SoCal. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Defenders of Florissant Inc. v. Park Land Development Co., retrieved 4 November 2024
* ↑ Browne, Barbara (11 July 1969). "Court Order Halts Fossil Bed Project" (PDF). Rocky Mountain News, Scripps-Howard. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 "Court Halts Florissant Work" (PDF). The Denver Post. 11 July 1969. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* ↑ Leopold, Estella B. (2014). "Response by Estella B. Leopold". Journal of Paleontology. 88 (3). [SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology, Paleontological Society]: 620–621. ISSN 0022-3360. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* ↑ "Fossil Beds Given Last Minute Reprieve" (PDF). Rocky Mountain News. 30 July 1969. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* ↑ "Order Against Bulldozing Florissant Beds Extended" (PDF). The Denver Post. 30 July 1969. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* 1 2 "Citizens, Scientists, and Lawyers Make a Monument". Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. 5 November 2022. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
* ↑ Leopold & Meyer (2012), p. 30: “Yannacone had made an eloquent case for why the people of the United States—as more than simply a term for the government—should have standing in a court of law. The judges did not make law by issuing a restraining order, but with their ruling they indicated that Yannacone’s argument was worthy of serious consideration.”
* ↑ Rodgers, William H. Jr. (1 January 1999). "The Most Creative Moments in the History of Environmental Law: "The Who's"". Washburn Law Journal. 39: 1. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Sax, Joseph L. (1972). Defending the Environment: A Handbook for Citizen Action. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-394-71794-4.
* ↑ "40th Anniversary of the Fossil Beds Celebrated" (PDF). Friends of the Florissant Fossil Beds Newsletter. 2009 (2): 18. November 2009. Retrieved 9 December 2024.
* 1 2 "Anniversary of Landmark Environmental Law Case at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument". National Parks Traveler. 8 September 2009. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Leopold & Meyer (2012), p. 131: “Yannacone insists today that ‘there was a theory—the Trust Doctrine of Equity Jurisprudence and the natural law basis for the Ninth Amendment—and there was law—hundreds of years of English common law equity all of which became a part of American Jurisprudence in 1796—or we would not have won. Precedents are necessary only when the law is well established.’”
* ↑ "National Wildlife Federation Awards Banquet" (PDF). National Conservation Achievement Program. National Wildlife Federation. 21 March 1970.
* 1 2 3 4 Reaves, Lynne (1984). "Agent Orange Megatrial: Money, reputations, GI's hopes … the stakes are high". ABA Journal. 70 (5). American Bar Association: 27–30. ISSN 0747-0088. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* 1 2 3 Podgers, James (1981). "Toxic Time Bombs: Say Latent Disease Suits Will Be Key Battleground in '80s". American Bar Association Journal. 67 (2). American Bar Association: 139–142. ISSN 0002-7596. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Searcy, Margie T. (February 1982). "Agent Orange Litigation: Cooperation for Victory" (PDF). TRIAL Magazine: 44–50.
* 1 2 Gordon, Dave (20 March 1970). "Creating Lunar Landscapes on Earth". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 30 October 2024.
* ↑ Abboud, Alexis (10 April 2017). "In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation (1979-1984)". Embryo Project Encyclopedia. ISSN 1940-5030. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
* 1 2 3 McNeil, Donald G. Jr. (21 November 1979). "Judge Allows Ill Veterans To Sue Defoliant Makers: Motion for Class Action". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Blumenthal, Ralph (6 May 1984). "Vietnam Agent Orange Suit By Veterans Is Going To Trial". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Kellam, Susan (2 October 1983). "Film Chronicles Agent Orange Suit". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
* ↑ Carella, Angela (27 December 2020). "'We were all out of our minds' — When Stamford vets waged a battle against Agent Orange". Stamford Advocate. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Bagnato, Adrienne (2008). "Agent Orange Caselaw: How Lawsuits by Vietnam Veterans, Vietnamese Citizens, and Newark Residents Transformed Toxic Tort Litigation (1960-2008)". Environmental Justice History in America.
* ↑ Bagnato, Adrienne (2022). "VIDEO: Agent Orange Caselaw: Vietnam, Veterans and Newark: diverse lawsuits impact future litigation". Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Abramson, Barry (1 April 1979). "Inspectors "Shopping" for Agent Orange". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Severo, Richard (28 May 1979). "U.S., Despite Claims of Veterans, Says None Are Herbicide Victims". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Searcy, Margie T.; Kavenagh, W. Keith; Yannacone, Victor J., Jr. (December 1981). "Dioxin: Molecule of Death" (PDF). TRIAL Magazine. Retrieved 17 December 2024.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
* ↑ Winerip (1983): “[Dioxin is] the most toxic substance made by man.”
* ↑ Burnham, “1965 Dow Memos” (1983): “[Dioxin] is believed to be the deadliest chemical made by man.”
* 1 2 Winerip, Michael (13 May 1983). "U.S. Judge Clears Way For Trial On Agent Orange". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Bogre, Michelle (June 1980). "Agent Orange: A Souvenir of War" (PDF). St. Johns Forum: 8–9, 14. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Burnham, David (19 April 1983). "1965 Memos Show Dow's Anxiety On Dioxin". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Blumenthal, Ralph (6 July 1983). "Files Show Dioxin Makers Knew Of Hazards". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Burnham, David (5 May 1983). "Dow Says U.S. Knew Dioxin Peril Of Agent Orange". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "Veterans Link Wide Variety Of Illnesses to Defoliant Use: Beer Made Some Nauseous; Sketches of Five Victims". The New York Times. 28 May 1979. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Kurtis, Bill; Economou, Rose; Boyer, Brian (3 February 1978). "Agent Orange: Vietnam's Deadly Fog". WBBM Channel 2 News Special. WBBM-TV. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Heidorn, Rich (15 February 1979). "Vietnam Vet's Suit Blames Defoliant for Birth Defects" (PDF). The Morning Call. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Schuck (1988), p. 44: “According to McCarthy, Yannacone… declined, explaining why the effort would be too costly to sustain and could not succeed, except perhaps on behalf of a class he could not then identify. But Yanacone could not get the case out of his mind. Several days later, after he had heard about some new cancer cases among Vietnam combat veterans, a class action began to seem more viable. He telephoned McCarthy and said, ‘You must realize what we would be up against.’ McCarthy, sensing Yannacone’s change of heart, replied, ‘I don’t care. We have to do it.’ They immediately met and began to map out a comprehensive campaign. The centerpiece was a national class action lawsuit, but their plan also incorporated other elements: a legislative strategy at the federal and state levels, outreach to veterans and their families, mobilization of the scientific community, and pervasive use of the mass media.”
* ↑ "Home to War: The Vietnam Veterans' Movement". Book TV. C-SPAN. 26 May 2001. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
* ↑ "CLIP: Victor Yannacone, Agent Orange, and 'Coming Home to War'". Book TV. C-SPAN. 19 April 2001. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
* ↑ Schuck (1988), p. 43: “Yannacone, then, was more than a lawyer who could make legal arguments and muster scientific data to advance a client’s interest. He was also a passionate partisan, a crusader who was personally and ideologically committed to subduing toxic chemicals in the interest of preserving ecological balance and human health. The incandescent intensity of his commitment, resonating through his flamboyant oratory, charismatic persona, and eccentric operating style, was to shape the course of the Agent Orange litigation.”
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wilcox, Fred (1989). Waiting for an Army to Die: The Tragedy of Agent Orange. Seven Locks Press. ISBN 978-0-932020-68-0.
* ↑ Sills (2014), p. 273: “Yannacone’s team broke new legal ground by combining two types of litigation, torts and class actions. Class actions generally involve a commercial wrong… in which a large number of people have been harmed. The underlying facts are mostly straightforward, basically the same for everyone, so the question of liability can be resolved in one stroke…. Combining many potential cases into a single lawsuit saves everyone time and money….Tort cases involving negligence are messier. It’s harder to prove harm and even harder to demonstrate who’s actually responsible for that harm…. These problems get even trickier when dealing with toxic torts. People can be exposed to a poison in all sorts of ways, often without realizing it at the time, and suffer very different kinds of harm, sometimes years after the fact.”
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sills, Peter (15 February 2014). Toxic War: The Story of Agent Orange. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 978-0-8265-1964-1.
* ↑ O’Neill, Laurie A. (5 July 1981). "Agent Orange In Stamford". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Schuck (1988), p. 52: “From the outset, Yanacone emphasized his intention to buttress the veterans’ causation argument, which would clearly be the weakest link in their case, by conducting his own epidemiological study. With the assistance of his wife, Carol, he planned to take computer-coded case histories on the individual veterans—including their pre-war medical condition, their exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, their post-war symptoms—and those of their families, and store these on computer tapes. Starting with this information base he would then refine the data in an effort to develop patterns of exposure, symptomatology, etiology, and legal responsibility that could stand up in court.”
* ↑ Stamps, David (1980). "Attorney Builds 3 Databases for "Agent Orange" Suit" (PDF). MIS Week. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Wright, Michael; Herron, Caroline Rand (15 May 1983). "Dioxin Trial To Proceed". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
* 1 2 Blumenthal, Ralph (14 October 1983). "Judge Withdraws From Suits Over Agent Orange". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (15 December 1981). "Agent Orange Plea Is Denied In Blow To Vietnam Veterans". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Sills (2014), p. 275: “This class action was also unusual because it involved vindication as well as money. The herbicides became a symbol of brave young men thrust into a toxic situation beyond their understanding and control. According to Yannacone, ‘One of the major goals in this case had always been whether or not Vietnam combat veterans, by getting their day in court, could undo their image of being baby killers and lunatic murderers. It was a valid goal of the lawsuit.’”
* ↑ Bogre (1980), quoting McCarthy: “‘We get no support from anyone except Victor.’”
* ↑ Weber (1979): “The beleaguered and often abandoned [veterans] have found themselves a general.”
* 1 2 O’Neill, Kathleen (2019). "Book Review: Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts, by Peter H. Schuck". N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change. 15: 415–428. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ O’Neill, Laurie A. (18 March 1984). "Medical Conference To Focus On Effects Of Agent Orange". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Blumenthal, Ralph (8 May 1984). "Veterans Accept $180 Million Pact on Agent Orange: Lawsuit Is Settled; 7 Herbicide Makers Plan Fund for Those Saying They Were Harmed". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Cuff, Daniel F. (8 May 1984). "Companies Comment on Pact". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Pear, Robert (8 May 1984). "U.S. Liability Not Resolved by Veterans Suit Settlement". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "Litigation Continued for Years". The New York Times. 8 May 1984. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
* 1 2 Jovanovitch, Milena (21 August 1988). "Agent Orange Suit: A Veteran's Legacy". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Blumenthal, Ralph (28 August 1986). "U.S. Court Blocks Plan To Use Agent Orange Fund". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Schuck (1988), quoted by Sills (2014), p. 326: “They had taken a case that was ‘unique, different, unprecedented and unheard of and tried to make it fit into a conventional mold’; they’d agreed to an ‘inadequate’ settlement; and they’d failed to understand that this was really a ‘public interest litigation.’”
* ↑ Fried, Joseph P. (18 May 1984). "New Agent-Orange Suit Filed". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ "A Suit Is Blocked On Agent Orange". The New York Times. 5 June 1984. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
* ↑ Schuck (1988), p. 44: “From the very first day, the veterans viewed Yannacone, in the military metaphors that McCarthy and others almost always use in discussing the case, as their ‘legal field commander.’”
* ↑ Grossman, Karl (1980). "Victor Yannacone: A Case Makes a Lawyer a Star and a Vocal Critic Too" (PDF). Newsday. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Martini, Edwin A. (2012). Agent Orange: History, Science, and the Politics of Uncertainty. University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 978-1-55849-974-4.
* 1 2 Yannacone, Victor J. Jr. (1 January 1974). "Agricultural Lands, Fertile Soils, Popular Sovereignty, the Trust Doctrine, Environmental Impact Assessment and the Natural Law". North Dakota Law Review. 51 (3): 615–654. ISSN 0029-2745. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Bryant, Nelson (22 December 1970). "Wood, Field and Stream: Fund Establishes Itself as Major Force in Correcting Environmental Abuse". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Muchemore, G. Robert (1973). "Report of the Chairman". The Forum (Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law, American Bar Association). 8 (4). American Bar Association: vii–viii. ISSN 0015-8356. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* ↑ Feingold, Leon (January 1976). "Report of the Committee on Environmental Law". The Forum (Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law, American Bar Association). 11 (Special Issue). American Bar Association: 271–272. ISSN 0015-8356. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* ↑ Dujack, Stephen R. (14 October 2019). "A Group Launches a Law Movement". The Environmental Forum.
* 1 2 3 4 5 Roe, Charles E. (1 May 1972). "The Second Battle of Gettysburg: Conflict of Public and Private Interests in Land Use Policies". Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 2 (1): 16. Retrieved 27 October 2024.
* ↑ Landau, Norman J.; Rheingold, Paul D. (1971). The Environmental Law Handbook: The Legal Remedies in Existence Now to Stop Government and Industry from Destroying Our Environment. A Friends of the Earth/Ballantine book. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-345-01995-0.
* ↑ Landau & Rheingold (1971), p. 39
* ↑ Bryant, Nelson (15 July 1971). "Wood, Field and Stream: Environmental Law Handbook States the Case for Defense of the Earth". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
* ↑ Smith, George P. II; Sweeney, Michael W. (1 January 2006). "The Public Trust Doctrine and Natural Law: Emanations with a Penumbra". Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Yannacone et al., Environmental Rights and Remedies (1972), p. 11: “The cornerstone of Environmental Law is the assertion that all of our national natural resource treasures are held in trust for the full benefit, use and enjoyment of all the people of the United States, not only of this generation but of those generations yet unborn, subject only to wise use by the current nominal titleholder. This assertion underlies every claim by citizens to protection of the nation’s resource treasures.”
* 1 2 Udall, Stewart L. (1988). The Quiet Crisis and the Next Generation (1st ed.). Peregrine Smith Books. ISBN 978-0-87905-333-8.
* ↑ Sabin, Paul (November 2015). "Environmental Law and the End of the New Deal Order". Law And History Review. 33 (4): 965–1003. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Sabin (2015): “The USDA, Yannacone said, serve the agricultural and chemical interests, rather than the American people. The agency was largely impenetrable to external groups seeking to inform its policies, and it failed to adequately study and address the environmental problems associated with DDT.”
* ↑ "For the Birds—and People". Sports Illustrated. 16 October 1967. Retrieved 7 November 2024.
* ↑ Sabin (2015): “[Yannacone] envisioned the courtroom as the proper setting for a titanic reform struggle. ‘Law is the framework of civilization and litigation is the civilized answer to trial by combat. The courtroom is the arena. Lawyers are your champions. The rules of evidence are the articles of war.’”
* ↑ TIME, “A New Say in Court” (1969): “[According to] Yannacone: ‘Every piece of enlightened social legislation that has come down in the past 50 or 60 years has been preceded by a history of litigation. It is the highest use of the courtroom—even when we lose—to focus public attention and disseminate information about intolerable conditions.’”
* ↑ Menand, Louis (11 February 2007). "Notable Quotables: Is There Anything That Is Not a Quotation". The New Yorker. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Shapiro, Fred R. (2021). The New Yale Book of Quotations. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-26278-0.
* ↑ Levine, Gabriel (2023). "Beyond "Big Government": Toward New Legal Histories of the New Deal Order's End". Michigan Law Review (121.6): 1003. doi:10.36644/mlr.121.6.beyond. ISSN 1939-8557. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
* ↑ Kundus, Bob (17 March 1970). "The Apocalypse for Media". Ann Arbor Argus. Ann Arbor Argus. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
* ↑ Chudwin, Dave (20 March 1970). "ENACT teach-in draws nationwide atention". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 30 October 2024.
* 1 2 McGrady, Sean (September 2010). "The Porn Star Who Came to Dinner: My Dad and the Great American Memoir". Poets & Writers. 38 (5). Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 Hall, April (3 March 2024). "Svengali — The Chuck Traynor Story: Part 6, The Marilyn Chambers Years, Podcast 136". The Rialto Report. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 4 Boreman, Linda “Lovelace”; McGrady, Mike (26 September 2017). Out of Bondage. Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0-8065-3906-5.
* ↑ Saxon, Wolfgang (4 January 1999). "Natale Laurendi, 75; Investigator And Expert With the Lie Detector". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 November 2024.
* 1 2 Rau, Jordan (24 January 1997). "Eddie Colton's Sobering Death". Newsday. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Rau, Jordan (1 January 1998). "TB Case Points to Gap in Law: Officials push to keep patient in the hospital" (PDF). Newsday. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Horsley, Carter B. (27 December 1970). "Suffolk is Sued in Ecology Test: Citizens' Group Sees Harm in County Zoning Practices". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 3 Molloy, Kevin (30 July 1992). ""Come on, do something!"" (PDF). The Long Island Advance. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Molloy, Kevin (29 October 1992). "Power Play" (PDF). The Long Island Advance. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* 1 2 "Editorial: A Wake-up Call" (PDF). The Long Island Advance. 30 July 1992. Retrieved 9 December 2024.
* 1 2 LaMonica, Barbara (5 August 1992). "Yannacone Asks Patchogue: Rewrite Village Code" (PDF). The Long Island Advance. Retrieved 9 December 2024.
* 1 2 Clines, Francis X. (12 July 1966). "Musicians Assail Plan for Suffolk: Cultural Center Would Be White Elephant, Group Says". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
* ↑ Kalish, Jon (12 July 1996). "Mensch of the Music World". The Jewish Week. Retrieved 11 December 2024.

# External Links

* Official Website
* Full list of academic publications at Academia.edu.
* C-Span appearances
* Chronology of public appearances
* Patents and inventions