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
There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States.
Petitioners Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski owned the rights to distribute Flowers products in certain parts of Connecticut. All this “complexity and uncertainty” would “‘breed[] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.’” Facts of the Case Respondent Flowers Foods, Inc.
Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The California Supreme Court denied three petitions for review. Second Circuit Rejected Challenges to Connecticut Renewable Energy Programs. California Chamber of Commerce v.
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. Exxon Mobil Corporation , No.
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.
On the other hand, 16 states protect access to abortion through various methods, such as state constitutional amendments and laws that protect the right to privacy, state supreme courtdecisions interpreting equal protection to include reproductive care, and statutes that protect access to reproductive care.
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, and that this authority may prove central to addressing climate change under the statute. Indeed, the plain meaning of the statute, its structure, and its purposes all support the Second Circuit’s conclusion. A summary is available here.)
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. May 24, 2021).
Federal Court Denied Oakland and San Francisco Motions to Return Climate Change Nuisance Cases to State Court; Found Federal Common Law of Nuisance Could Apply, Despite AEP v. Connecticut ; Requested “Tutorial” on Climate Change. Connecticut ) and Ninth Circuit ( Native Village of Kivalina v. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS.
The Court held that the provision used “extension” in its “temporal sense,” but that the statute did not impose a “continuity requirement” and instead allowed small refineries to apply for hardship extensions “at any time.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.
After the developers terminated the Keystone XL pipeline project, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 16, 2021 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction barring work on the pipeline.
Connecticut , 564 U.S. In Minnesota, the district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. s consumer protection statute. The Second Circuit cited American Electric Power Co.
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