Remove Louisiana Remove Statute Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Compassionate release, election rules, and procedural puzzles

SCOTUSBlog

Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that stopped their latest effort to obtain a federal forum for cases brought in Louisiana state court, where six coastal parishes brought a group of sprawling coastal restoration suits. The companies had removed the suits to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C.

Statute 71
article thumbnail

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition: The Supreme Court’s “Substantial Deference” Standard and Implications for Judicial Review under NEPA

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Background This case involved an EIS for an 88-mile rail line intended to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin in Utah to the national railway system, where it could then be carried by train to oil refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and other states. 3] See Prosser & Keeton on Torts, 5th Ed. 1984; Knobe & Shapiro (2021). [4]

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Dismissal affirmed where HCLA pre-suit notice was sent to wrong entity.

Day on Torts

Before filing suit, plaintiff consulted with a friend who was an attorney in Louisiana. When that friend could not find a Tennessee lawyer to take her case before the statute of limitations ran out, he sent her a sample pre-suit notice form. Plaintiff thereafter filed this HCLA suit. internal citations and quotations omitted).

Tort 59
article thumbnail

Reschedule Watch: Birthright citizenship and torts to members of the armed forces

SCOTUSBlog

United States , the 1950 Supreme Court case holding that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by members of the armed forces while on active duty and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. Louisiana , 21-993. United States. Until next time, stay safe !

Tort 108
article thumbnail

Draft Amicus Brief in Chiles v. Salazar, the Professional Speech / Minor Conversion Therapy Case

The Volokh Conspiracy

Rather, the "speech integral to illegal conduct" exception properly applies to speech that sufficiently risks causing or threatening some other nonspeech crime or tort: It is that relationship that makes speech "integral" to the criminal or tortious conduct. The illegal conduct can consist of physical nonspeech behavior. Argument [I.]

article thumbnail

November 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) authorization of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from three facilities in Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas. The court also dismissed defamation and related state tort claims. In an unpublished decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the U.S.

Court 40
article thumbnail

February 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The defendants filed their reply brief on January 22, 2020, reiterating their arguments that the Tenth Circuit should review the entire remand order, not just the district court’s determination that removal was not proper under the federal-officer removal statute, and that there were multiple valid grounds for removal. City of Oakland v.