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 23

Does Sackett add to the enforcement defense toolbox for energy companies

  • King & Spalding LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 2 2012

In its highly anticipated decision in Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court unanimously held that landowners may bring a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to challenge an EPA compliance order issued under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”

Fifth Circuit shuts down climate tort plaintiffs again

  • Latham & Watkins LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 20 2013

Climate tort plaintiffs cannot catch a break in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a May 14, 2013, decision, the Fifth Circuit foundonce

2013 Ohio oil and gas law review

  • Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 20 2014

This past year proved active for Ohio's oil and gas industry. We saw exploration and drilling operations increase substantially and migrate further

Seeking a safe harbor: can ASTM's BEPA help sellers avoid liability?

  • Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2011

How do you know if a certain commercial property is energy efficient or inefficient?

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

Texas Supreme Court rules groundwater rights are property rights

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2012

In a unanimous decision, the Texas Supreme Court has held that “land ownership includes an interest in groundwater in place that cannot be taken for public use without adequate compensation”

Recent developments in environmental permitting litigation

  • Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 2 2011

There were many significant environmental permitting cases decided in the Massachusetts courts in 2010 that have implications for landowners, developers, and various industries

MATL dispute headed back to district court

  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 10 2011

The Montana Supreme Court has reversed a December 2010 district court decision that found that the developers of the Montana-Alberta Tie Line merchant transmission project do not possess eminent domain authority under Montana law and therefore could not take private land from a nonconsenting landowner

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

First District publishes significant CEQA decision on legal feasibility of mitigation for prime farmland losses in Masonite Corporation v. County of Mendocino

  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 2 2013

In a partially-published opinion filed July 25, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment denying a writ petition