Court Opinion

ID: 9709291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:44:14.124353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:47.479598
License: Public Domain

HOLLAND, Justice,
for the majority.
This is an appeal from the Court of Chancery’s June 19, 2006, ruling granting summary judgment to the appellees, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (“DNREC”), John A. Hughes, Secretary of DNREC, and David Small, Deputy Secretary of DNREC on appellant, Sierra Club’s request for permanent injunctive relief. Sierra Club’s lawsuit sought to bar the appellees from conducting dredging operations in the Assawoman Canal until they complied with the Environmental Appeal Board’s (“EAB” or “the Board”) *548May 10, 2005, and July 26, 2005, orders remanding an August 16, 2004, dredging permit back to DNREC for a proper cost/benefít analysis.
The issue presented by this proceeding is whether the appellees can dredge the Assawoman Canal without complying with the EAB’s orders remanding the dredging permit matter to the DNREC. Sierra Club’s lawsuit for declaratory and injunc-tive relief alleged that dredging without complying with the EAB’s orders violates Sierra Club’s procedural due process rights under Article I, § 9 of the Constitution of the State of Delaware, the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Subaqueous Lands Act, DeLCode Ann. tit. 7, § 7201, et seq. (“SLA”). The Court of Chancery granted summary judgment against Sierra Club, finding it had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and that it would suffer irreparable harm.
Sierra Club has raised two issues on appeal. First, it alleges the Court of Chancery erred when it found that Sierra Club would not succeed on the merits. Second, it alleges the Court of Chancery erred when it granted summary judgment on the basis of lack of irreparable injury to Sierra Club.
The majority has determined that both of Sierra Club’s arguments are without merit. The majority concludes that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons set forth in its decisions of December 2, 2005,2 and June 19, 2006.3 Therefore, the judgment of the' Court of Chancery is affirmed.

. Appendix I.

. Appendix II.