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 181

Imminent and substantial endangerment under RCRA -- I know it when I see it

  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2009

Justice Potter Stewart famously said, with respect to obscenity, that "I know it when I see it."

Test for preparation of supplemental or subsequent EIR is significance of impacts from project modifications, not the modifications

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2007

In Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeal of California addressed the issue of whether the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (the “CRA”) properly relied on a 2005 Addendum to a 1989 environmental impact report (“EIR”) in approving a modified project

Two dioxin classes certified in West Virginia; additional class action seeks $300 million in punitive damages

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2008

A West Virginia state court has cleared the way for property damage claims by 25,000 or more individuals to proceed as class actions in Carter v. Monsanto Co., Circuit Court of Putnam Cty, W. Va. (2000) and Allen v. Monsanto Co., Circuit Court of Putnam Cty, W. Va. (2004

Superfund liability: owner? Operator? Property manager?

  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 15 2009

In an interesting decision issued a few weeks ago, a District Court in Georgia held that a property manager at a strip mall could not be held liable as an owner of a facility under CERCLA

Fifth Circuit decision threatens a tsunami of climate change tort cases while the defense bar awaits a circuit split

  • Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 22 2009

On October 16, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived a lawsuit filed by residents and property owners along the Mississippi Gulf coast against several corporations in the energy, fossil fuels and chemicals industries alleging that the defendants were responsible for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina

What the courts are saying...

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2008

We begin this month with a look at another case dealing with a public entity’s broad discretion in evaluating bids on public construction projects

City not required to identify specific location for off-site mitigation under CEQA because standards sufficient

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 6 2009

The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District determined that the City of Rancho Cordova did not improperly defer mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") when it adopted a mitigation measure that required the applicant to develop (1) a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan for off-site mitigation pursuant to standards which would ensure no net loss of habitat as a result of on-site construction; and (2) a wetland avoidancemitigation plan to address the potential impacts of any off-site creation activities contemplated in the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan

Supreme Court to hear arguments tomorrow in eminent domain case

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 1 2009

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in the case Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FIFRA: Eighth Circuit rules statute contains no private cause of action

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 11 2010

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota decision that FIFRA does not provide a private cause of action to those allegedly injured as a result of a manufacturer’s violation of FIFRA’s labeling requirements

TSCA: Eleventh Circuit upholds regulations requiring lead warning statements by residential property lessors

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 13 2010

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld regulations under TSCA and the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, requiring lessors of residential property built before 1978 to put a specifically worded "Lead Warning Statement" in the property's lease and affirmatively disclose either that lead-based paint is present on the property or that the lessor has no knowledge of such paint

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy