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: 1-10 of 792

Seventh Circuit rules laches no bar to breach of contract for failure to remove contaminants
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 16 2011

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a landowner who sold property to The Nature Conservancy but failed to remove contaminants as required by the sales contract cannot bar a breach of contract claim by asserting laches as a defense


Federal court rules hazardous substance spill from tractor-trailer covered by CERCLA
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2012

A federal court in Indiana has ruled that a commercial tractor-trailer that leaked a hazardous substance during the delivery of textbooks to a high school met the definition of a “facility” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and thus did not fall under the law’s “consumer product in consumer use” exception


California court finds environmental review inadequate to support development
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 31 2013

A California state court has determined that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepared in connection with approval of development in the Santa


Federal court dismisses CAA enforcement action on statute of limitations grounds
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2011

A federal court in Pennsylvania has dismissed an enforcement action brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and several states under the Clean Air Act (CAA) against a coal-fired power plant in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, ruling that the government’s claims were filed well beyond the applicable statute of limitations


Ninth Circuit upholds $28.8-million jury award against contractor for “intangible” damages
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2012

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a $28.8-million federal jury award against a contractor found liable for “intangible” environmental damage from a June 2002 wildfire that burned 18,000 acres in California’s Angeles National Forest


Federal court dismisses NRD claim on issue preclusion ground
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • US Virgin Islands, USA
  • December 16 2011

A federal court in the Virgin Islands has dismissed a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCL A) natural resources damages (NR D) claim along with four causes of action under Virgin Islands common law and a claim under the Virgin Islands oil spill law, finding the claims barred by issue preclusion


Transportation agencies violated NEPA by approving $800-million toll road, says Fourth Circuit
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2012

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FH A) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NE PA) when they approved an $800-million toll road project near Charlotte, N.C


Owners of downgradient property not liable under CERCLA
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2012

A federal court in New York has absolved from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act owners of property adjacent to a church from which groundwater containing contaminants had migrated


Federal court awards punitive damages against asbestos contractor
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2012

A federal court in Ohio has entered a $1.3-million default judgment against an asbestos remediation contractor for improper disposal of asbestos and fraud


Federal court finds Colorado coal plant violated MACT standards
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

A federal court in Colorado has determined that a coal-fired power plant violated Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulatory regime changed as a result of challenges to EPA regulations