Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 11
Indiana and Ohio petition U.S. Supreme Court to reverse greenhouse gases nuisance ruling
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 12 2010
Indiana and Ohio joined 10 other states, industry groups, and the Obama Administration to ask the U.. Supreme Court to reverse a greenhouse gases nuisance ruling in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company, which allowed states and private plaintiffs to sue coal-fired utilities for contributing to global warming through carbon dioxide emissions
Federal district court rules in favor of coal-fired power plant and against government in prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) lawsuit
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 14 2010
Following a bench trial, a federal district court in the Sixth Circuit decided that the replacement of the economizer and superheater sections at a coal-fired power plant fell within the routine maintenance, repair, and replacement (RMRR) exception to PSD regulations
Federal district court dismisses PSD claims seeking civil penalties as time-barred
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 14 2010
A federal district court recently answered a common question in PSDNSR enforcement litigation: When is it too late to sue for civil penalties related to a major modification?
EPA's dog won't hunt
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 14 2011
Avenal Power Center, LLC prevailed in its lawsuit (Avenal Power Center, LLC v U.S. EPA, 2010 WL 6743488 (D.D.C.)) against U.S. EPA for its failure to grant or deny a PSD permit application for the construction of a natural gas-fired power plant within the statutorily mandated one-year period
Electrical utility is not a CERCLA “arranger"
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- April 12 2011
Plaintiffs, who owned a scrap yard, sued two of its utility customers under CERCLA for contribution towards the $1.37 million cost to conduct the State-mandated remediation of the on-site PCB contamination in Schiavone v. Northeast Utilities Service Company, 2011 WL 1106228 (D. Conn. Mar. 22, 2011
AEP v. Connecticut
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 11 2011
In a unanimous decision issued on June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal legislation within the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims brought by eight states and New York City in a lawsuit against five major utility power companies
Federal district court partially tosses malpractice claims against enviro engineers
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 27 2011
A federal district court dismissed a lender’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and strict products liability against two environmental engineering firms related to a brownfield redevelopment project involving an old landfill, but allowed other claims seeking damages in excess of $10 million to continue against the firms for CERCLA cost recovery, breach of contract, and negligence
Rapanos wetlands confusion: Third Circuit accentuates the circuit split
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 4 2011
When the United States Supreme Court issued its wetlands defining decision in Rapanos v. United States, environmental practitioners, real estate developers, and consultants believed that boundaries would be set for determining when a wetland was regulated under the Clean Water Act
U.S. Supreme Court to hear utilities’ appeal of GHG nuisance lawsuit
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 7 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court will review the Second Circuit’s decision allowing a public nuisance lawsuit to continue against coal-fired, electricity-generating utility companies for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Sixth Circuit finds that, under Title V of Clean Air Act, adjacent means adjacent
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 20 2012
In a broadly reasoned opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of Summit Petroleum and determined that the USEPA could not aggregate emissions from a natural gas processing plant and an associated complex of production wells covering forty-three square miles into a stationary source under Title V of the Clean Air Act
Current Search
- Jurisdiction - USA
- Workarea - Litigation
- Workarea - Energy & Natural Resources
- Workarea - Environment
- Firm Name - Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Suggested Facets
Author
- Heidi H. Trimarco (1)
- Kim K. Burke (1)
- Kira Johnson (1)
- Laura A. Ringenbach (2)
- Robert R. Clark (1)
- Scott M. Doran (1)
- Scott R. Alexander (2)
- William C. Wagner (3)