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
Federal Court Found Flaws in New Climate Change Analysis for Wyoming Oil and Gas Leases. The federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that the U.S. The appellate court also found that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless because the State proved both acts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Share This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether the House of Representatives may vote by proxy, when the statute of limitations begins for state prisoners seeking DNA testing, a football coach’s post-game prayer and Texas’ new anti-abortion law. In Skinner v.
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 granted the company leave to amend its complaint with 21 days. On October 4 , the federal district court for the Northern District of California vacated the U.S.
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. Montana and Wyoming Asked Supreme Court to Consider Claims That Washington Impermissibly Blocked Access for Coal Shipments. City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. ,
California Federal Court Barred BLM from Enforcing Delay of Oil and Natural Gas Waste Prevention Rule; States, Trade Groups Asked WyomingCourt to Expedite Review of Rule and Suspend Deadlines. 22, 2018); Wyoming v. Trump , No. 1:17 -cv-00253 (D.D.C. California v. Bureau of Land Management , No.
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.
A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Colorado recommended that the court grant an underground coal mine operator’s motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act citizen suit that alleged the mine required a Prevention of Significant Deterioration construction permit and a Title V operating permit. 1:20-cv-01342 (D.
Grimm , leaves in place a lower-courtruling 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.
With respect to federal-officer jurisdiction, the district court noted that this case was similar to County of San Mateo v. in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court finding that the federal-officer removal statute did not provide jurisdiction. The federal district court for the District of Montana denied the U.S.
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The court further found that EPCA’s legislative history did not support the plaintiff’s “expansive interpretation.” The cases were filed in 2016 , 2020 , and 2021.
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