Remove 2030 Remove Court Decisions Remove Statute
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

A Hawaii court held that the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act requires environmental review for commercial taking of aquarium fish and that Department of Land and Natural Resources issuance and renewal of licenses for commercial aquarium collection without environmental review was invalid and illegal.

Court 59
article thumbnail

October 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.

Court 72
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Is There Really a Fiduciary Duty to Destroy the Climate?

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

4] Canadas statute is an updated version of what have been called constituency statutes in the United States, which explicitly expand the fiduciary duties of corporate managers and directors beyond shareholders but do not usually include the environment among allowable factors, except in Arizona and Texas. [5]

Statute 59
article thumbnail

September 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Northern Plains Resource Council v.

article thumbnail

January 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Spain (Supreme Court of Spain).

Court 52
article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.

Court 45
article thumbnail

Are Collective Net Zero Targets Anticompetitive?

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Two principal federal antitrust statutes govern agreements among competitors: the Sherman Act of 1890, which prohibits monopolization and unlawful trade restraints, and the Clayton Act of 1914, which identifies additional prohibited conduct, including with respect to interlocking directorates, and mergers and acquisitions.

Finance 105