Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.

<> Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. - 5/20/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. Nos. 14-1346. Fireman's Fund, Great American, and MSI underwrote insurance policies that included coverage for a dry dock that Signal owned. After the dry dock sank, Signal and Fireman's Fund sought contribution for losses and cleanup costs from Great American and MSI. The district court held that the Great American and MSI policies were void and the Appeals Court affirmed.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Karl Ebert v. General Mills, Inc.

<> Karl Ebert  v.  General Mills, Inc. - 5/20/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. 15-1735. General Mills, Inc., challenges the district court's grant of class certification in this environmental-contamination lawsuit.1 Plaintiffs, all owners of residential properties in a particular neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota, sued General Mills, alleging General Mills caused the chemical substance trichloroethylene (TCE) to be released onto the ground and into the environment at a former General Mills facility, located within the same neighborhood --  the district court certified a proposed class. Because the class lacks the requisite commonality and cohesiveness to satisfy Rule 23, we reverse.

Friday, May 20, 2016

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.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

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.

Monday, May 9, 2016

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."

Thursday, May 5, 2016

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."

Monday, May 2, 2016

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.