Bode & Grenier, LLP v. Carroll Knight

<> Bode & Grenier, LLP v. Carroll Knight - 10/23/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-7104. A law firm based in the District of Columbia, Bode & Grenier, LLP, provided legal services to three Michigan-based companies owned and managed by Carroll Knight ("appellants") who offer petroleum fueling products and services. More than ten years into the relationship, appellants stopped paying the bill. The predictable result? Litigation. The law firm prevailed in the district court, winning a judgment for $70,000 in overdue legal fees—plus $269,585.19 in legal fees for having to litigate over $70,000 in legal fees. We affirm the district court.

CPV Maryland, LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC

<> CPV Maryland, LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC - 10/19/15. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-623, Appealed from the decision of the Fourth Circuit. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-614 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

Judicial panel decides against centralizing WOTUS cases in D.C.

<> Judicial panel decides against centralizing WOTUS cases in D.C. - In the latest development in the WOTUS wars. a panel of federal judges has declined to move all the outstanding cases to the District of Columbia District Court, as requested by the Environmental Protection Agency -- that leaves nine cases active in seven districts. (the order for a list of those cases.)   A "Whirlwind of Confusion": Sixth Circuit Imposes Nationwide Stay of EPA's New Clean Water Rule - Analysis from Jackson Kelly PLLC State of Ohio v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Complete details from WIMS October 13, 2015 Environmental HotSheet

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Petitioner v. Electric Power Supply

<> Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Today for Access to Clean, Low-Cost Energy - The case, FERC v. EPSA, centers on demand response – a tool that helps lower power costs for people and businesses while strengthening reliability and protecting the environment and public health. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Petitioner v. Electric Power Supply Association, et al. – Supreme Court docket Docket No. 14-840, 14-841 – All briefs filed Argument Transcript – Posted later today Electric Power Supply Asso. v. FERC - Decisions in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

David Herr v. U.S. Forest Service

<> David Herr v. U.S. Forest Service - 10/9/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No.14-2381. Herr bought waterfront property on Crooked Lake in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and planned to use their gas-powered motorboat on it; however, the U.S. Forest Service threatened to enforce a regulation that bans non-electric motorboats from the ninety-five percent of the lake that falls within a National Wilderness Area.       Herr sued seeking to enjoin enforcement of the regulation on the ground that the relevant federal statute preserves their state-law property right to use all of the lake.       The district court held that a six-year time bar on the action was jurisdictional and that the Herr had waited too long to file this lawsuit. The Appeals Court reversed saying it  based its decision "in large part on a Supreme Court decision handed down after the district court's decision." [See United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015).]

State of Ohio v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

<> State of Ohio v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - 10/9/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case Nos.15-3799/3822/3853/3887 involving many other states, including Michigan, challenge the validity of a Final Rule adopted by respondents U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA, "the Clean Water Rule" (i.e. WOTUS rule).      The 18 petitioner states are: OH, MI, TN, OK, TX, LA, MO, GA, WV, AL, FL, IN, KS, KY, NC, SC, UT, & WI. The respondent-intervenors include environmental groups and the states of NY, CT, HI, MA, OR, VT, WA and the District of Columbia.      The Appeals Court ruled in a split decision, ". . .on due review of the relevant considerations in light of the briefs filed by petitioners, respondents and intervenors, and in the exercise of our discretion, we GRANT petitioners' motion for stay. The Clean Water Rule is hereby STAYED, nationwide, pending further order of the court."       The dissenting judge said, "I believe that it is not prudent for a court to act before it determines that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. . . If we lack jurisdiction to review the Rule, then we lack jurisdiction to grant a stay." Boehner Statement on WOTUS Ruling Smith Statement on Ruling to Halt WOTUS US Appeals Court Blocks EPA Water Rule Nationwide 6th Circuit halts implementation of WOTUS rule Sierra Club Responds To Court Ruling Endangering American Waterways Clean Water Rule Decision Delays Enforcement but Reinforces Need for Protections

Leonard Ameika v. Keith Moss

<> Leonard Ameika v. Keith Moss - 10/5/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 14-1459. In this non-precedential decision the Panel explains, "Plaintiffs, thirty-five residents of Duryea, Pennsylvania, appeal the District Court's dismissal of their substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants, the Borough of Duryea, the mayor of Duryea, and various borough officials, for failure to prevent flood damage to plaintiffs' properties during Hurricane Irene. Because plaintiffs failed to allege that their harms stemmed from any affirmative actions taken by defendants, or that defendants' actions "shocked the conscience," we will affirm."

Arizona v. Ashton Company Incorporated Contractors and Engineers, et al.

<> Arizona v. Ashton Company Incorporated Contractors and Engineers, et al. - Supreme Court Docket No. 14-1019, Vide 14-972. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the Ninth Circuit case finding that district courts must more closely analyze states' CERCLA settlements ". . . comparing 'the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the [settling parties] with the proportion of liability attributable to them.'" State of Arizona v. Raytheon Co, et al. - 8/1/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-15691.

NRDC v. EPA

<> NRDC v. EPA - 10/5/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals. Second Circuit, Case No. The Appeals Court explains & rules, "Four environmental organizations petition for review of a Vessel General Permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2013 under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1).  The permit regulates the discharge of ballast water from ships, a primary cause of the spread of invasive species from one body of water to another.  Petitioners contend that the Environmental Protection Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the permit, and request that it be set aside.  We agree, in part.   Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in part and deny it in part, and remand to the Environmental Protection Agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  We do not vacate the Vessel General Permit, but allow it to remain in effect until the issuance of a new Vessel General Permit." Appeals Court Rules EPA's Vessel General Permit Not Adequate Court orders EPA to revise ship ballast dumping regulations

Sturgeon v. Masica

<> Supreme Court To Hear Case On National Park Service Regulatory Control - 10/01/15. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Sturgeon v. Masica, Case No.14-1209. The case addresses whether Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over State, Native Corporation, and private Alaska land physically located within the boundaries of the National Park System. Sturgeon v. Masica - 10/6/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-36165.

Appeals Court Rejects Attempts to Continue Premature Litigation against the Proposed Clean Power Plan

<> Appeals Court Rejects Attempts to Continue Premature Litigation against the Proposed Clean Power Plan - The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has denied several petitions for an en banc reconsideration to its decision to reject lawsuits challenging the Administration's proposed Clean Power Plan. Clean Power Plan case resources before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals