The cases listed below appear in the most recent issue of ELR's Weekly Update. For cases previously reported, please use the filter on the left.
Volume 41, Issue 18
The Federal Claims court denied the United States' motion to dismiss a company's action to recover over $2 million in litigation expenses allegedly owed to it under the indemnification provisions of various contracts the company performed for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
A California appellate court held that a county's approval of a development project violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the CAA displaces any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.
The Seventh Circuit held that an environmental group has standing to challenge a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit allowing 18.4 acres of wetlands in a state park to be destroyed to make way for a landfill.
The Fourth Circuit held that the Tax Injunction Act does not bar the owner of a power plant from challenging an excise tax on carbon dioxide emissions. A lower court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act because the carbon charge was a tax.
The Seventh Circuit denied environmental groups' petitions challenging EPA's approval of revisions to Wisconsin's new source review program.
The D.C. Circuit denied medical waste trade associations' petition for review challenging EPA's performance standards for new and existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI).
The First Circuit upheld a FERC order requiring a precision tool and instrument manufacturer to seek licensing under §23(b) of the Federal Power Act before it can proceed with certain changes to a hydroelectric generating facility project on its property.
A district court granted in part and denied in part several motions and cross-motions for summary judgment in a cost recovery and contribution action stemming from contamination at a dry cleaning business.
A district court held that a consent decree settling an electric company's CERCLA liability with EPA and granting it contribution protection against additional CERCLA liability at an industrial site does not provide the company with contribution protection from a defense company's actio
You must be an ELR subscriber to access the full content.
You are not logged in. To access this content: