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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 11-20 of 7,217

Supreme court: a term-end review
  • Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2015

As the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014-15 term draws to a conclusion, the Court has resolved or will resolve in a matter of days several


"Raisin Case" could have broad impact
  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the "Raisin Case" (Horne v. Department of Agriculture) has implications far beyond the vines of Fresno. The court


Supreme Court denies cert in Aransas Project v. Shaw
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal of the Fifth Circuit's decision which reversed the lower court's ruling. The Fifth Circuit found that


A different level of deference given to states in CERCLA consent decrees
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2015

In a recent decision, Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit found that state government agencies should not be


Hawaii’s novel environmental court
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • June 17 2015

The residents of the state of Hawaii have long prided themselves on their commitment to maintaining the beauty and the pristine condition of their


A year after Waldburger, are lower courts ready to dump CERCLA's broad remedial purpose?
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • June 16 2015

In the Winter 2015 issue of the ABA's Natural Resources & Environment magazine, John Barkett retraced the Supreme Court's treatment of the


“Clearing” the waters U.S. EPA and the Army Corps finalize “waters of the United States” definition
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2015

On May 27, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") issued their


Fish & Game Code section 1602 is unambiguous, now requiring more water users to provide “1602 notification” to “substantially divert” water
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2015

On June 4, 2015, the Court of Appeal ruled that California Fish and Game Code section 1602 (“Section 1602”) unambiguously requires notification to


A CEQA trustee agency “muscles up”: Third District holds Department of Fish and Wildlife’s newly exercised power to require notice of and regulate substantial water diversions even absent streambed alteration was always unambiguously authorized by
  • Miller Starr Regalia
  • USA
  • June 15 2015

Under CEQA, a "trustee agency" is a "state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for


EPA's carbon dioxide plan can proceed
  • Nexsen Pruet
  • USA
  • June 12 2015

On June 9th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected two petitions seeking to block EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan