Experts in the environmental field often say that they base their opinions on “multiple lines of evidence.” Is that good enough?
For example, the federal regulations governing cost-benefit assessment of Clean Air Act regulations call for evaluation of lines of evidence in scientific literature. see 40 C.F.R. Section 83.1 (definition of systematic review process). An application for approval of an alternative liner system for control of a coal combustion residual disposal unit must evaluate certain enumerated “lines of evidence.” Indeed, one might say that the process of “all appropriate inquiry” to establish the innocent purchaser and bona fide prospective purchaser defenses under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, see 40 C.F.R. pt. 312, ultimately turns on the evaluation of “multiple lines of evidence.” And, of course, lawyers in the field have seen many submissions to regulators and, indeed, expert reports in litigation citing not any particular scientific methodology, but instead “multiple lines of evidence.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]