Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 15

The amorphous "unusual circumstances" exception to CEQA's categorical exemption strikes again

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
October 26 2012

The recent Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District case from the California Court of Appeal’s Third District applied the “unusual circumstances” exception to overturn a categorical exemption used to approve a water supply memorandum of understanding (MOU) for an existing Native American casino

The Chevron Ecuador saga continues as Second Circuit overturns anti-enforcement injunction

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
Ecuador, USA
-
March 12 2012

In the latest U.S. chapter of the long and hard-fought battle over claims of pollution and adverse health effects from oil development in the Ecuadorian rain forest by Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001), a potentially important court victory has gone to the so-called Lago Agrio plaintiffs

River segment must be navigable in fact for commercial purposes at statehood for state to obtain title to riverbed under the equal footing doctrine

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
March 5 2012

weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in PPL Montana v. Montana

Enforcement of California low-carbon fuel standard blocked

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
January 6 2012

California's effort to reduce the carbon footprint of producers and refiners of fuel has hit a snag

Court clarifies mitigation requirements for impacts to historical resources, reaffirms use of existing conditions as analytical baseline

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
September 27 2011

The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District of California held this month that the Environmental Impact Report for the Tesoro Viejo mixed use development project in southeastern Madera County failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act

Carbon dioxide emissions not subject to federal common law nuisance claims

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
July 1 2011

In the battle over climate change, the Supreme Court once again set an important precedent in American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut (“American Electric Power”

Supreme Court to decide fate of global warming litigation in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
December 22 2010

On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a federal nuisance case on appeal from the Second Circuit

US courts order discovery for use overseas in Chevron-Ecuador disputes

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
Ecuador, USA
-
December 8 2010

A high profile and complex dispute involving a group of Ecuadorian residents, Chevron Corporation and the Republic of Ecuador is forcing courts and the media to focus on an arcane provision of federal law that authorizes federal courts in the United States to order testimony or the production of documents for use in a foreign or international tribunal

Coastal Commission's no substantial issue determination will be upheld even if project technically not consistent with LCP

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
August 5 2010

In Hines v California Coastal Commission, the First District Court of Appeal upheld the Coastal Commission's determination that an appeal raised no substantial issue under the California Coastal Act, and went so far as to state in dicta that even if a development were technically inconsistent with a Local Coastal Program ("LCP"), the Commission could still reject an appeal of the approval of that development as not presenting a substantial issue

Vested rights under prior permits do not establish CEQA baseline

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
April 27 2010

In this case, the Supreme Court of California held that neither the statute of limitations, the principles of vested rights, nor the CEQA case law on which ConocoPhillips relied, justified employing the maximum capacity allowed under prior equipment permits as an analytical baseline for a new project, rather than the physical conditions actually existing at the time of the analysis