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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 3,824

Manufacturer of dry cleaning machine not liable under CERCLA

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2010

The manufacturer of a perchlorethlyene ("PCE" or "PERC") recycling machine was recently found not liable as an "arranger" or "transporter" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust, 2010 WL 3133195 (E.D.Cal. 2010

Attorney-client privilege in environmental crimes prosecutions

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 5 2008

Ongoing concerns over the Department of Justice 2006 “McNulty Memo” policy allowing DOJ to seek waivers of the attorney-client privilege in environmental crimes prosecutions have led to some recent changes

EPA agrees to finalize NAAQS for PM-2.5 and ozone for Los Angeles basin

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2011

In a consent decree approved by a federal court in California on February 8, 2011, EPA agreed to finalize nonattainment designations for the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates (PM-2

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown: California Court of Appeal opens door for new chemicals to be listed under Proposition 65 without scientific or public review

  • Latham & Watkins LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2011

In a significant defeat for the business community, the California Court of Appeal for the First District has issued a decision that allows the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add many new chemicals to the Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxicants without first providing an opportunity for meaningful scientific or public review

Court denies motion to reconsider March 2012 ruling that EPA does not have to determine if emissions from aircraft engines contribute to air pollution

  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 8 2012

As previously posted in “U.S. District Judge Dismisses Environmental Group's Legal Suit to Force EPA to Regulate Aircraft Engine Emissions,” in March 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) motion for summary judgment and refused to force the agency to determine if emissions from aircraft and ships “cause or contribute to dangerous air pollution.”

NEPA: federal court rules proposed beltway not in violation

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2010

A federal judge in North Carolina has ruled that a proposed beltway in Winston-Salem does not violate NEPA

Insurers uphill fight on coverage in Indiana

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 6 2011

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals provided insurance companies doing business in Indiana with guidance on how to draft pollution exclusion clausesprovisions typically included in commercial general liability ("CGL") policies that seek to exclude coverage for claims based on environmental contamination

EPA and environmental groups seek Supreme Court review in cross-state air pollution case

  • Jenner & Block
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2013

On March 29, 2013, EPA and several environmental groups filed two separate Petitions for A Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court

Two Polar Bear decisions in two weeks: their significance for climate change, endangered species and project development

  • Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2013

The end of February saw a flurry of news regarding the status of the Polar Bear under the Endangered Species Act. On February 20, the US Fish and

Georgia Superior Court strikes down permit and requires greenhouse gas controls at coal-fired power plant

  • Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 7 2008

On June 30, 2008, in a surprising decision, a Georgia Fulton County Superior Court construed the Federal Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations to strike down an air permit issued by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (“EPD”