JonathanTurley

NOVEMBER 21, 2021

It evolved into a common-law tort to address a broader range of “interests of the community at large—interests that were recognized as rights of the general public entitled to protection,” in the words of the American Law Institute’s Second Restatement of Torts (1965-79). The same result was seen in nuisance claims on lead paint.

Tort 43

Tort Litigation Litigating Manufacturing 43

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

OCTOBER 7, 2019

Rhode Island Federal Court Denied Motion to Stay Remand Order in Rhode Island’s Climate Change Case. Rhode Island v. The court said the laws’ provision for criminal or tort liability for advising, encouraging, or soliciting persons participating in a riot to acts of force or violence was overbroad and vague.

Court 40

Court Government Statute Tort 40

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

NOVEMBER 16, 2020

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. State court proceedings in Rhode Island’s case were put on hold in August pending the U.S.

Cause of Action 96

Cause of Action Court Government Litigation 96

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JULY 2, 2021

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.” In re Enbridge Energy, LP , Nos.

Court 48

Court Litigation Litigating Statute 48

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

JUNE 8, 2021

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. Rhode Island , No.

Court 44

Court Statute Government Litigation 44

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

FEBRUARY 10, 2020

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. Rhode Island v.

Court Reporting 40

Court Reporting Court Government Construction 40