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

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

Wetlands: federal court finds either Rapanos test valid to establish CWA jurisdiction

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

A federal judge in Delaware has ruled that either the plurality or concurrence standards in Rapanos v. U.S., 547 U.S. 715 (2006), may be used to establish Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction in wetlands enforcement cases

CERCLA: Second Circuit rules contribution action does not require EPA approval of settlement

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 12 2010

According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a CERCLA consent decree does not require EPA approval for the settling party to seek response and cleanup costs under section 113 based on the settlement

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."

Hong Kong-based shipping company indicted

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 14 2010

A federal grand jury in Texas has reportedly returned an indictment against a Hong Kong-based shipping company in connection with the illegal dumping of oil wastewater, obstruction of agency proceedings, making false statements, and failing to maintain accurate pollution-control records

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

Greenhouse gases: cases challenging EPA’s endangerment finding held in abeyance

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 2 2010

In light of petitions for reconsideration pending before EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Virginia’s motion to remand to EPA to adduce further evidence on its endangerment findingi.e., that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks endanger public health and welfare

Greenhouse gases: New Mexico Supreme Court rules state board may consider GHG cap

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2010

The New Mexico Supreme Court has reportedly vacated a lower court's preliminary injunction, issued in April 2010, halting the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board's process for gathering expert testimony and public comments on a petition to establish a cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state

Endangered Species Act: federal court reinstates protection for gray wolf

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

A federal judge in Montana has reinstated Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains

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