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
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a state law violated the youth plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment under the state constitution. She further said that the ruling “ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate.”
Wilson deals with the QTA’s 12 year statute of limitations for claimants and asks whether the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional rule or a claim-processing rule. The court has twice ruled that the 12 year statute of limitations in the QTA is a jurisdictional rule in Block v. North Dakota and United States v.
Cooley argued that such authority was limited by statute and that there is precedent against the recognition of a tribe’s inherent sovereignty over non-Indigenous persons on their land. Cooley examines the sovereign authority of tribal governments over their territory and persons within.
But local governments operate under varying legal parameters, and the Ninth Circuit decision has different implications for different building electrification requirements depending on location, legal landscape, and policy approach. This post is not expressing a legal opinion on Ithaca’s code.) Clean Air Act, not EPCA.
The Sabin Center’s Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative provides pro bono legal counsel to community members who support renewable energy projects.) . These permitting decisions may then subject transmission lines to NEPA, among other statutes. . Three Recent Pipeline Setbacks. In April of this year, the U.S.
Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, even though it requires out-of-state corporations registering to do business within the state to consent to all-purpose (general) personal jurisdiction. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021). The result in Mallory v.
December 1 is also the deadline for noncommercial ownership reports to be filed by noncommercial radio stations in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont , and noncommercial television stations in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (see our Advisory here ).
They are intended to render legal disputes plannable and predictable. Nordmeier : International jurisdiction and foreign law in legal aid proceedings – enforcement counterclaims, section 293 German Code of Civil Procedure and the approval requirements of section 114 (1) German Code of Civil Procedure.
The court said the statutory language authorized courts to grant stays and that EPA’s reading of the statute “would have the perverse result of empowering this court to act when the agency denies a stay but not when it chooses to grant one.” A debtor would beg to differ.”).
The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to allege an injury in fact since he “never explained why he had any legal right to have the document distributed.” EPA’s brief is due December 15. National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. Williams , No.
The district court held that the federal Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional, concluded that a reasonable landowner would have known that the government had been permitting public use of the road since the 1970s, and dismissed the case. We have just one new relist this week. In Wilkins v. New Relist.
Before trial, the district court rejected Struve’s argument that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment in pulling him over without reasonable suspicion because they could not tell whether he was texting or using his cellphone legally. Lamoureux v. Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care LLC.
Montana Department of Revenue , the Supreme Court ruled that although states are not required to subsidize private education, states that choose to do so cannot exclude religious schools from receiving funding simply because they are religious. A new case on public funding and religious education. Last year, in Espinoza v.
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.
This week, we highlight petitions asking the court to consider, among other things, whether to overturn a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a state law requiring minors under the age of 18 to get consent from their parents before obtaining an abortion. Last August, the Montana Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
Organizers across the state facing similar pushback also say they would prefer the Texas Legislature to pass laws that would decriminalize or even legalize marijuana — though they acknowledge how unlikely that is given the state’s conservative power structure. “We have legalized recreational marijuana. A town-by-town fight.
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.
The breadth of the compassionate release statute Two cases involve the scope of judicial discretion under the co-called compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. It remains to be seen whether the justices will conclude that the Guidelines amendments moot this dispute, or whether the statute permits broader relief. 2244(d)(1)(D).
The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Northern Plains Resource Council v. 20-35412 (9th Cir.
Five TikTok users filed a lawsuit in a federal Montana court on Wednesday to stop the state’s newly enacted TikTok ban from going into effect. The five TikTok users argue that the newly enacted law “attempts to exercise powers over national security that Montana does not have and to ban speech Montana may not suppress.”
Louisiana filed suit in the US District Court for its Western District, leading a cohort comprising Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Circuit to hold the cases in abeyance was to allow the federal district for the District of Columbia to resolve cases challenging NHTSA’s action that raise similar legal issues. The court found that the plaintiff, who did not allege any legally cognizable relationship with the community college, had failed to allege Article III standing.
The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Bernhardt , No. 4:18-cv-05712 (N.D. Washington , No. 22O152 (U.S.
Montana Federal Court Found Failure to Take a Hard Look at Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Review of Coal Mine Expansion. The federal district court for the District of Montana found flaws in an updated environmental assessment for a mining plan modification that extended the life of the Spring Creek Mine, a surface coal mine in Montana.
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. Renewable Fuels Association v.
The California federal court said the substantive legal issues in the District of Wyoming case were distinct from the procedural issues at issue in this action. On February 28, Montana and Wyoming filed a motion seeking to lift the stay and also seeking immediate suspension of the Waste Prevention Rule’s implementation deadlines.
The federal district court for the District of Montana dismissed a lawsuit that sought to compel the U.S. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Federal Court Rejected Claims that Climate Change-Related Developments Necessitated Supplemental NEPA Review for Forest Plan and Projects. Friends of the Headwaters v.
In Alito’s view, the 8th Circuit “applied the correct legal standard and made a judgment call on a sensitive question.” corporations can be sued for violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the law on which the Iraqi plaintiffs were relying, at all. And in the second case, Montana and Wyoming v.
Supreme Court Denied Montana and Wyoming’s Challenge to Washington Actions that Barred Coal Exports. 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.” 22O152 (U.S.
in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court finding that the federal-officer removal statute did not provide jurisdiction. Citing “Unique Background” of Case, Montana Federal Court Rejected Transfer of Claims Regarding Public Lands in Wyoming. The federal district court for the District of Montana denied the U.S.
Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. Circuit in 2016 signaled that the legal framework for the Clean Power Plan “hinges on important issues of federal that EPA then—and the court below now—got so wrong this Court was likely to grant review.” Haaland , No.
Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. On July 21, the plaintiffs filed their opposition in district court in Montana to the developers’ motion to dismiss the action as moot. FEATURED CASE. Biden , No.
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