Remove Construction Remove Statute Remove Technology Assisted Review
article thumbnail

July 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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 Second Circuit said the Connecticut statutes authorizing the solicitations did not compel utilities to enter into contracts with specific bidders.

Court 40
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Army Corps of Engineer permits for construction of a portion of a proposed methanol refinery and export terminal in Washington (the Kalama Project). 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.

Court 58
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

March 2018 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The federal district court for the Southern District of California rejected challenges to waivers of environmental laws granted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for certain types of border wall construction projects in San Diego County.

Court 40
article thumbnail

January 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The federal district court for the District of Maine declined to issue a preliminary injunction barring construction of the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC), an electricity transmission project to connect the New England energy grid with non-fossil fuel sources of electric power. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C.

Court 52
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. The court concluded that the forest products company had not pleaded actual malice with the level of specificity required to sustain the state law claims. Resolute Forest Products, Inc.

Court 40