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 117

Legal malpractice: real estate developer alleges law firm failed to conduct environmental due diligence

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2010

A real estate developer has sued a Louisiana-based law firm alleging that the firm failed to perform an environmental assessment which would have revealed that land it purchased for development was part of a World War II-era bombing range

CERCLA: US sued over contaminated former Kansas Air Force Base

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

Several public entities including the City of Salina, Kansas, have sued the federal government over alleged trichloroethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride contamination at the former Schilling Air Force Base

CERCLA: federal court rules EPA cost recovery lawsuit barred under compulsory counterclaim rule

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 20 2010

A federal judge in California has ruled that CERCLA cost recovery claims involving perchlorate and trichloroethylene contamination of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin are subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), which "bars a party who failed to assert a compulsory counterclaim in one action from instituting a second action in which that counterclaim is the basis of the complaint."

CERCLA: federal court upholds joint and several liability ruling

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2010

A federal judge in California has ruled that Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S., 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009), did not change existing law regarding joint and several liability under CERCLA

Toxic tort: federal court rejects affirmative defenses in exposure lawsuit

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

A federal judge in Arkansas has granted a partial summary judgment to plaintiffs in a toxic tort lawsuit, thereby rejecting four affirmative defenses

NEPAwater resources: federal court upholds injunction in water supply project lawsuit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 19 2010

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has upheld an injunction preventing the completion of the Northwest Area Water Supply Project until the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) completes an adequate environmental impact statement (EIS) that takes a “hard look” at the cumulative impact of water withdrawal and invasive species issues

Former tugboat company manager convicted of dumping dredged material

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2010

A federal jury in San Francisco has reportedly convicted the former manager of Brusco Tug & Barge Co. of Longview, Washington, of illegally dumping tainted dredged materials into Sacramento-San Joaquin River near Pittsburg, California

Toxic tort: Tenth Circuit applies ‘but for’ test as causation standard

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2010

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that toxic tort plaintiffs in New Mexico must demonstrate that their alleged injuries would not have occurred "but for" the defendants' act

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

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