Kansas v. Nebraska

<> Kansas v. Nebraska - 2/24/15. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 126, Orig. The case involves an agreement between Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado to apportion the "virgin water originating in" the Republican River Basin.      In a split decision involving concurring in part and dissenting in part by various Justices, the High Court referred the case to a Special Master and now accepted his recommendations as to appropriate equitable remedies: for Kansas, partial disgorgement but no injunction; and for Nebraska, reform of the appendix.

Yates v. US

<> Yates v. US - 2/25/15. In the U.S. Supreme Court. Docket No. 13-7451. The case involves a commercial fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico caught with undersized red grouper, in violation of federal conservation regulations. Subsequently the the undersized fish were thrown overboard, destroying evidence and also in violation of federal law.      In a 5-4 decision that reversed and remanded the decision of the district and appeals court the Majority concludes that "trapped" fish are not within the term "tangible object," as that term is used in section 1519 and a "tangible object" within the meaning of section 1519 is one used to record or preserve information, and fish do not meet such criteria.

Smith Lake Improvement v. FERC

<> Smith Lake Improvement v. FERC - 1/30/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1074. The Appeals Court denies to hear a challenge by Smith Lake Improvement and Stakeholder Association regarding the issuance of a license order for Alabama Power; saying it lacks jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely.

Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell (DOI)

<> Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell (DOI) – 1/26/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-16980. Plaintiffs sought costs and expenses, including attorney's and expert witness fees, from the Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) after Black Mesa participated in a successful challenge to OSM's grant of a coal mining permit revision.      The Appeals Court ruled: "We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the agency for further proceedings on the question of 'entitlement.'"

Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC

<> Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC – 1/27/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 13-5086. Appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London. Split decision.      ICG Hazard, LLC, operating under a general permit, conducted surface coal mining in Kentucky and discharged selenium into surrounding water. Although the permit did not specify effluent limitations for selenium, the discharge resulted in levels exceeding the threshold in the state's water quality standard. The district court, finding that the permit shield protected ICG from liability, granted summary judgment in ICG's favor. Through our analysis of the permit shield's application in the context of a general permit, we also conclude that the permit shield covers ICG's discharges in this case. We therefore affirm.

Visteon Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance

<> Visteon Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance - 1/23/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 14-2725. Visteon, a large manufacturer of automotive parts, with manufacturing facilities scattered around the world but its headquarters in Michigan, brought this diversity suit for breach of contract against the National Union insurance company.       The Appeals Court rules: "We note finally that the pollution-exclusion clause is unambiguous, and therefore National Union had no duty to defend Visteon against the suits brought against it by neighboring landowners who experienced losses because of the leak of TCE from Visteon's Connersville plant. Visteon has failed to make a case. The judgment in favor of National Union is therefore affirmed.

LWD PRP Group v. Alcan Corp.

<> LWD PRP Group v. Alcan Corp. - 1/14/15. Unpublished opinion. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 14-5730. Appealed from the Western District of Kentucky at Paducah.      The case deals with a party's effort to obtain reimbursement for the costs of cleaning up a Superfund site in Calvert City, Kentucky. The appeal presents a particular legal question: whether the three year statute of limitations for contribution actions after an administrative settlement to perform a removal action. . . begins running when the settlement becomes effective or begins running when the removal action is completed.      The district court agreed with Plaintiff-Appellee that the statute of limitations for such claims runs from the completion of the removal action. The Appeals Court reversed the decision indicating the 3-year time limit begins running when the settlement becomes effective.