Maiden Creek Associates LP v. DOT

<> Maiden Creek Associates LP v. DOT - 5/19/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 15-3224. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief is brought pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321. Maiden Creek Associates and the Board of Supervisors of Maidencreek Township appeal the order of the District Court dismissing their complaint and denying their motion to amend. The Panel affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

D.C. Appeals court delays action on Obama's carbon emissions plan

<> D.C. Appeals court delays action on Obama's carbon emissions plan - 5/116/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday delayed consideration of a challenge by 27 states to President Barack Obama's federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired plants, meaning a decision will not come until after the November presidential election -- it will now hear the case on Sept. 27 -- originally scheduled to hear the case on June 2. DC Court Delays Hearing Over Obama's Carbon Rule. Here's How It Could Actually Speed Things Up - oral argument will be before the en banc court (9 Justices instead of 3) -- the D.C. Circuit functioning as something of a court of last resort with the Supreme Court likely to deadlock 4-4. [includes language of the Order] D.C. Circuit Court Expedites Legal Process for the Clean Power Plan Full D.C. Circuit to Decide Legal Merits of the Clean Power Plan [Previous WIIMS Coverage] U.S. Court of Appeals Rules that Clean Power Plan Will Remain in Effect - State of West Virginia, et al. v. EPA - In the U.S. Court of Appals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 15-1363, consolidated with many others.

Jocelyn Allen, et al v. Boeing Company

<> Jocelyn Allen, et al v. Boeing Company - 5/5/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 16-35175. A class of 108 plaintiffs sued The Boeing Company (Boeing) and Landau Associates (Landau) in Washington state court, alleging that for several decades Boeing released toxins into the groundwater around its facility in Auburn, Washington, and that for over a decade Landau had been negligent in its investigation and remediation of the resulting pollution.      The Panel ruled, "We affirm the district court's remand of this case to the state court, holding that Plaintiffs have adequately pled both that they are seeking 'significant relief' from Landau and that Landau's alleged conduct forms a 'significant basis' for their claims."

Tooele County v. United States

<> Tooele County v. United States - 5/3/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 15-4062. Wilderness Alliance indicates that the court order clears the path for Tooele County resident Michael Abdo and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to move forward with a state court lawsuit that could derail the State of Utah's RS 2477 litigation which they say is an ongoing campaign to wrest federal public lands away from Americans.      On legal details, the Panel ruled, "The second exception to the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, and the district court erred by concluding that it could enjoin the state-court proceedings. This error requires reversal and remand for further proceedings." Federal Appeals Court Clears Path for State Court to Hear Taxpayer Lawsuit

National Surety Corporation v. Dustex Corporation

<> National Surety Corporation v. Dustex Corporation - 4/29/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals Case, Eighth Circuit, Case Nos: 15-2096 & 15-2328. This is an insurance-coverage dispute that began with an arbitration proceeding, expanded to state court, and eventually made its way to federal court. The district court concluded that Dustex failed to establish the affirmative defense of estoppel. On appeal, Dustex raised two arguments: (1) the district court erred by applying Iowa law rather than Georgia law to the estoppel claim, and (2) the district court erred in finding that Dustex failed to establish its affirmative defense of estoppel. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court opinion.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC

<> Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC - 4/26/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1225. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) denial of NRDC's request for a hearing and subsequent application for a waiver, in the matterr of Exelon's Limerick nuclear power station in Pennsylvania, asserting the process was inconsistent with the procedural rigor mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).       The Appeals Court ruled, "We find the Commission reasonably concluded NRDC's request to intervene was a challenge to a general rule. . . and, contrary to NRDC's view, while NEPA requires agencies to take a hard look before approving a major federal action, it does not mandate adoption of a particular process for doing so. Having failed to show its contentions were unique to Limerick, NRDC also was not entitled to a waiver. We conclude the Commission's actions were not arbitrary and capricious and deny the petition."

In Re: U.S. DOD & EPA & the Definition Of WOTUS

<> In Re: U.S. DOD & EPA & the Definition Of WOTUS - 4/21/16, Order denying en banc review. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Consolidated Case Nos. 15-3751 /3799/ 3817/ 3820/ 3822/ 3823/ 3831/ 3837/ 3839/ 3850/ 3853/ 3858/ 3885/ 3887/ 3948/ 4159/ 4162/ 4188/ 4211/ 4234/ 4305/ 4404. WOTUS Case Update - There will be no hearing of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the waters of the United States rule (WOTUS) as a result of an order issued Apr 21 by the court in Cincinnati -- instead of the entire 23-judge court reviewing the case, the illegal future of the rule will remain in the hands of a three-judge panel. Clean Water Act rule rehearing denied In Re: U.S. DOD & EPA & the Definition Of WOTUS - 2/22/16, opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit in the consolidated case