NRDC v. USDOT

NRDC v. USDOT - 10/30/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-56467. The Panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal and state defendants in an action brought by environmental groups alleging that the defendants violated the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to properly evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impact of a planned expressway connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the I-405 freeway.

National Oilseed Processors Assoc. v. OSHA

National Oilseed Processors Assoc. v. OSHA - 10/24/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1228. Petitioners (and intervenor for petitioners), whose members include numerous businesses that handle and process grain and other agricultural products, seek vacatur of the Final Rule as it applies to combustible dust. The Panel denied the petition for review.

Appeals Court Decision On Csapr A Major Victory For Health Of Children, Elderly And Asthma Sufferers

Appeals Court Decision On Csapr A Major Victory For Health Of Children, Elderly And Asthma Sufferers – 10/23/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit lifted its hold on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which will protect Americans from dangerous air pollution that crosses state lines from coal-fired power plants.

Headwaters Resources v. Illinois Union Insurance Co.

Headwaters Resources v. Illinois Union Insurance Co. - 10/20/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 13-4035. Under several applicable policies, Headwaters sought reimbursement for its litigation costs arising from a case brought by landowners in Virginia, alleging that fly ash used in the construction of a golf course caused air and water pollution that devalued their homes and created health risks. The Panel ruled that each of the pollution exclusions is unambiguous, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies.

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA - 10/21/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case Nos. 12-9596, 13-9502, 13-9506, 13-9507, 13-9508, 13-9509, 13-9510. Environmental groups filed the suit under the Clean Air Act challenging a regional cap and trade program in New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming regulating sulfur-dioxide emissions over the Colorado Plateau. The Panel  concluded that the EPA's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and denied the petitions for review.

• Court Approves Flawed EPA Air Pollution Plan for "Scenic Landscape" States - Groups say the program was supposed to strengthen air quality protections for the Colorado Plateau but instead weakens pollution control standards

Erica Y. Bryant, et al. v. USA

Erica Y. Bryant, et al. v. USA - 10/14/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 12-15424. The appeal arises out of a multi-district litigation, in which multiple plaintiffs and their family members allege that they experienced various health problems after being exposed to toxic substances in the drinking water while living at Camp Lejeune, a military base in North Carolina. The United States moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the North Carolina statute of repose, the District Court disagreed, concluding that a provision of CERCLA preempted North Carolina's statute of repose. The Appeals Court ruled "CERCLA does not preempt North Carolina's statute of repose. . . and it does not contain an exception for latent diseases."

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp v. NRC

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp v. NRC - 10/14/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1259. Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation petitions for review of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission order reinstating the transfer of regulatory authority to the State of New Jersey under the Atomic Energy Act. The Panel denied the company's petition and said, "We conclude that the NRC has rationally addressed these concerns when it provided a textual analysis of 10 C.F.R. § 20.1403 and explained how New Jersey's regulatory regime is adequate and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program."

Aaron McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.

Aaron McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. - 10/7/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 13-3350. The petition for rehearing argues that the court misinterpreted Illinois law in affirming the district court's rejection of Outland's proposed counterclaim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Outland's petition for rehearing is denied and Gamesa is entitled to recover the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) from Thomas Melone, Outland Renewable Energy, LLC (now known as Renovo Renewable Energy, LLC).

Joseph Adinolfe, et al v. United Technologies Corporation

Joseph Adinolfe, et al v. United Technologies Corporation - 10/6/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case Nos. 12-16396, 12-16397. The consolidated appeals concern the dismissal with prejudice of a class action lawsuit brought by hundreds of parties against United Technologies Corporation d.b.a. Pratt & Whitney, an aircraft and rocket engine manufacturer, for damages resulting from purported groundwater contamination. The Panel reversed and remanded.

Sturgeon v. Masica

Sturgeon v. Masica - 10/6/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-36165. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal appellees, and vacated the judgment against intervenor/appellant State of Alaska, due to its lack of standing, in an action brought by John Sturgeon challenging the National Park Service's enforcement of a regulation banning the operation of hovercrafts on the Nation River.

Ruby Hiser v. XTO Energy, Inc.

Ruby Hiser  v.  XTO Energy, Inc. - 10/3/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 13-3443. Ruby Hiser won a jury verdict against XTO Energy, Inc. XTO moved for a new trial, alleging that extraneous, prejudicial information [related to fracking]] was brought to the jury's attention. The district court denied the motion and declined to subpoena the jury foreperson. XTO appeals. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court ruling.

 

Environmental Information Specialists -- WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet -- eNewsUSA blog -- EcoBizPort.com

 

In Re: Urethane Antitrust Litigation

In Re: Urethane Antitrust Litigation - 9/29/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 13-3215, involving Dow Chemical Company v. Seegott Holdings, Inc. The Panel concludes, "We affirm, rejecting Dow's challenges to the order for class certification, the refusal to decertify the class, the admission of Dr. McClave's testimony, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the award of damages."