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
As more legal teams embrace this technology, state bars have begun to provide frameworks to guide its implementation. For example, in November 2023, the State Bar of California's Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued guidance for attorneys looking to use the technology.
While e-discovery workflows, both TAR and linear, for a litigation production focus on systematically classifying documents based on discovery requests, investigations focus on story development in a more open-ended context, usually requiring a search for key documents.
California Supreme Court Denied Petitions to Review Ruling That Upheld Cap-and-Trade Program. The California Supreme Court declined to review an intermediate appellate court’s decision upholding the statewide greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. The California Supreme Court denied three petitions for review.
Like the district court, the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that the regulations were a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the rules could impact the environment by increasing “deadhead” trips to and from the airport. 1:20-cv-00056 (D.D.C. Union of Concerned Scientists v. 19-1230 (D.C.
Bankruptcy Court Said California City and Counties Could Not Sue Coal Company for Climate Change Impacts. California Federal Court Dismissed Paper Products Company’s RICO Lawsuit Against Environmental Groups. On October 4 , the federal district court for the Northern District of California vacated the U.S. California v.
The federal district court for the Northern District of California denied Oakland’s and San Francisco’s motions to remand their climate change public nuisance lawsuits against five major fossil fuel producers to state court. People of State of California v. California Federal Court Upheld Environmental Law Waivers for Border Wall.
In December 2020, three additional petitions for writ of certiorari were filed by fossil fuel companies seeking review of decisions affirming remand orders in cases brought by the County of San Mateo and other California local governments, by Rhode Island, and by the City of Boulder and Boulder and San Miguel Counties in Colorado.
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