Remove Court Remove New Mexico Remove Punitive Damages
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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. Third, the court found that BLM used internally inconsistent emission rates. In 2018, the court vacated EPA’s earlier denial of the request.

Court 59
article thumbnail

“Corners Were Being Cut”: Baldwin Shooting Already Has The Makings of a Blockbuster Tort Action

JonathanTurley

Many of the crew were from California but the set is in New Mexico. c) Vehicular—… New Mexico has a similar provision that allows “involuntary manslaughter” charges for “the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.”

Tort 50
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

November 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Bankruptcy Court Said California City and Counties Could Not Sue Coal Company for Climate Change Impacts. A federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoined San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). FEATURED CASE.

Court 40
article thumbnail

November 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Oregon Supreme Court Said Public Trust Doctrine Did Not Impose Obligation to Protect Resources from Climate Change. With respect to the scope of the doctrine, the Supreme Court said the public trust doctrine extends both to the State navigable waters and to the State’s submerged and submersible lands. (A FEATURED CASE. Chernaik v.

article thumbnail

May 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Supreme Court seeking review of the D.C. The states argued that the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan while it was under review by the D.C. The states contended that further delay in the Court’s resolution of these “weighty issues” would have “serious and far-reaching costs.” FEATURED CASE. 20-1530 (U.S.

Court 40