ALLCO v. Klee

<> ALLCO v. Klee - 11/6/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 15-20. Affirming the district court's ruling on alternative grounds which dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.       The Appeals Court ruled: "We hold that: (1) the plaintiff cannot bring claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to vindicate any rights conferred by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA") because PURPA's private right of action forecloses such a remedy; (2) the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a prerequisite to bringing an equitable action seeking to vindicate any rights conferred by PURPA; and (3) the plaintiff lacks standing to bring a preemption action seeking solely to void the contracts awarded to the intervenors."

Treasure State Resource v. EPA

<> Treasure State Resource v. EPA - 11/3/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1263, consolidated with 13-1264, 14-1093, 14-1164. Each of the two petitioners now before us, Treasure State Resource Industry Association and United States Steel Corporation, challenges one of these 29 designations (not meeting its new SO2 standards): the Association attacks the one for part of Yellowstone County, Montana, and U.S. Steel challenges the one for part of Wayne County, Michigan. Each sought reconsideration by EPA, unsuccessfully.      The Appeals Court rules, "We deny the petitions for review. Except insofar as both are attacks on EPA's August 2013 designations with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the two claims have virtually nothing in common. . ."

Kathy Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.

<> Kathy Little v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. - 11/2/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 14-6499. This case involves the operation of the Cane Run power plant in southwestern Louisville, owned and operated by Louisville Gas and Electric Company. Plaintiffs allege that the ash, dust, and coal combustion by-products are not only annoying, but also, they are composed of dangerous elements, including arsenic, silica, lead, and chromium. The Appeals Court ruled, "The district court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' state common law claims is affirmed. We lack jurisdiction to consider the other, unrelated orders challenged by the plaintiffs in their brief on this interlocutory appeal."

Merrick, et al. v. Diageo Americas Supply

<> Merrick, et al. v. Diageo Americas Supply - 11/2/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 14-6198. This interlocutory appeal concerns whether the federal Clean Air Act preempts common law claims brought against an emitter based on the law of the state in which the emitter operates. The Appeals Court ruled, "The Clean Air Act's text makes clear that the Act does not preempt such claims. This conclusion is further supported by the Act's structure and history, together with relevant Supreme Court precedents."

California Dump Truck Owners Association V. Mary Nichols

<> California Dump Truck Owners Association V. Mary Nichols - In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 15-123, petition to appeal the decision of the Ninth Circuit denied.  California Dump Truck Owners Association V. Mary Nichols - 4/27/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-15175.

Samuel Zook, et al., v. U.S. EPA

<> Samuel Zook, et al., v. U.S. EPA - 11/2/15. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 15-350, petition to appeal the decision of the D.C. Circuit denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit dismissed a lawsuit (Case No. 14-5187) to force EPA to regulate emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs).

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.