Remove Alaska Remove Punitive Damages Remove Statute
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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. Lawsuit Challenged Development Plan for Portion of National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Alaska, filed Nov. Bureau of Land Management , No.

Court 56
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.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

November 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Second Lawsuit Filed to Challenge 211-Mile Mining Access Road in Alaska. County of Maui v.

article thumbnail

May 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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.

Court 40
article thumbnail

November 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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 punitive damages and attorney fees.

Court 40