This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In addition to more intense storms, the municipalities allege other physical climate change impacts, including coral reef degradation and massive algal blooms, as well as social, educational, and economic losses, including increased immigration from the municipalities and damages to the agricultural industry.
The companies filed their brief on November 16, arguing that the Fourth Circuit erred by concluding that it was limited to reviewing removal based on the federal-officer removal statute. The plaintiffs asserted a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and requested that the court award them compensatory and punitivedamages.
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.
The court also granted motions to strike the state law claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. Jacobson demanded damages from Clack and NAS “to be determined at trial believed to be in excess of Ten Million Dollars,” plus punitivedamages and attorney fees.
Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. First, the Supreme Court concluded that the statute requiring Commission approval of affiliated-interest agreement did not require environmental review. Maui and Honolulu oppose the extension request. County of Maui v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content