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 91

Ninth Circuit affirms foreign nationals' standing to challenge "no-fly list" inclusion
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • February 23 2012

In a decision likely to impact foreign nationals as well as airlines, airports, and related insurers, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court ruling which held that a Malaysian citizen studying in the U.S. has legal standing to sue in U.S. courts to challenge the mistaken presence of her name on the No-Fly List.


Federal court rejects FAA's approval of wind farm
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 15 2011

Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued 130 "no-hazard" determinations in connection with an offshore wind farm proposed to be constructed on Nantucket Sound.


DC Circuit vacates crucial FAA determinations for Cape Wind project
  • Pillsbury
  • USA
  • October 31 2011

The DC Circuit has vacated and remanded the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) no hazard determinations for 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, finding that the FAA failed to follow its own handbook in determining whether the proposed turbines would have a “substantial adverse effect” on air navigation.


BAA challenges decision by Competition Commission on divestment of airports
  • Nabarro LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 3 2011

BAA claims that the Competition Commission’s (CC) conclusions over the need for divestment of airports are “flawed” and “irrational”.


Competition Commission’s final ruling
  • Morton Fraser
  • United Kingdom
  • September 20 2011

In July the Competition Commission delivered its final ruling in respect of the challenge by BAA to its 2009 decision, where BAA was told to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh airports.


Aviation associations denied intervention into environmental lawsuit
  • Sullivan & Worcester LLP
  • USA
  • May 18 2011

In June 2010, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed by several environmental groups who request that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) determine if greenhouse gasses (“GHGs”) from marine vessels, aircraft and other non-road vehicle sources “significantly contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” (District of Columbia, C.A. 1:10-cv-00985).


Beware: potential evidence of conspiratorial conduct may be lurking when making public comments
  • Williams Mullen
  • USA
  • September 27 2010

A Northern District of Georgia Federal District Court recently held that allegations that two airline executives had reached an agreement to raise prices through a series of statements made to stock analysts at public press conferences was sufficient to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.


STITA bid protest loss underscores need to comply with solicitation's protest procedures
  • Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
  • USA
  • June 9 2010

On June 8, Division I of the Court of Appeals issued an unreported decision on the challenge by STITA, the incumbent provider of taxi services for Sea-Tac Airport, to a procurement by the Port of Seattle that led to an award to a competitor.


FAA considering a radical change in aircraft registration
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • May 7 2010

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is re-examining its long-standing practices in the area of aircraft ownership and the statutory citizenship requirement.


Old secrets in the (red) light of the cockpit
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • March 31 2010

Addressing the issue of just compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Federal Claims and held that Honeywell’s patent at issue was valid and that Honeywell had standing to seek just compensation for pre-issuance use and post-issuance infringement of the patent by the United States.