We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

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

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

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

2nd Circuit allows public nuisance suit against greenhouse gas emitters

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 29 2009

States and private plaintiffs may sue utility operators under the federal common law of nuisance to abate carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions that contribute to global warming, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held this month

EPA's new source performance standard does not apply to discharges of mining slurry regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 8 2009

On June 22, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held that the new source pollution standards in Section 306(b) of the Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) did not apply to discharges of slurry from a rehabilitated “froth-flotation” gold mine into a nearby navigable lake