Remove Legal Remove Technology Assisted Review Remove Virginia
article thumbnail

July 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The majority responded to this latter point by saying that “[t]he dissent’s view is akin to saying that incurring a debt has legal consequences, but forgiving one does not. Fourth Circuit Said West Virginia District Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Consider Coal Companies’ Clean Air Act Jobs Study Lawsuit. A debtor would beg to differ.”).

Court 40
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. 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. 19-2128 (4th Cir. Williams , No. 20-127 (2d Cir.

Court 59
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

The mining company argued that the district court should not have issued the injunction without hearing legal arguments and factual evidence on the appropriate remedy, and without weighing the mandatory factors for a mandatory injunction. Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Attorney General of Vermont , No. 349-6-16WNCV (Vt.

Court 40
article thumbnail

March 2018 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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. Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. West Virginia Court Dismissed Defamation Suit Against John Oliver Brought by Coal Executive and His Companies. Jacobson v.

Court 40
article thumbnail

January 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The plaintiffs alleged that the pipeline project would almost double the pipeline’s capacity and that the project would facilitate increased extraction and use of Canadian tar sands oil, resulting in “significant damage, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, due to its contribution climate change.” Friends of the Headwaters v.

Court 52