Remove Court Rules Remove Montana Remove Statute Remove Tort
article thumbnail

February 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Montana Federal Court Found Failure to Take a Hard Look at Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Review of Coal Mine Expansion. In earlier litigation challenging the same mining plan modification, the court found procedural and substantive violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). WildEarth Guardians v.

article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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. Sierra Club v.

Court 43
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

Justices won’t intervene in dispute over transgender rights and bathrooms

SCOTUSBlog

Grimm , leaves in place a lower-court ruling that found that a Virginia school district violated federal law when it barred students from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities. corporations can be sued for violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the law on which the Iraqi plaintiffs were relying, at all.

article thumbnail

November 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Montana Federal Court Allowed Some Coal Mining Activity to Take Place While Federal Agency Completed Required NEPA Review. The company said the injunction would “[i]n a matter of weeks … cause severe consequences to the mine and its employees, in an area of Montana that can ill-afford economic displacement.” CP18-5 (FERC Oct.

Court 40
article thumbnail

February 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

If the renewal license was an order, the First Circuit asked the state court to address whether the CCA expressly preempted the ordinance challenged in this case. The court also found that the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous because there is no legal theory on which he can rely.” Williams , No. 19-cv-6855 (E.D.N.Y. City of Oakland v.