Lacano Investments v. Balash - 8/28/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35854. The case involves land patents which gave title to certain streambeds in Alaska that were issued by the federal government many years before Alaska entered the Union. The panel affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an action against Alaska officials who determined that under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, streambeds claimed by the plaintiffs were owned by the State of Alaska.
ASARCO v. Union Pacific - 8/27/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35356. The district court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that although Asarco's claim was timely, it was barred by a 2008 settlement agreement between the parties that settled Union Pacific's claims against Asarco at the same site. The Panel reversed and concluded that Asarco's claim was timely, but that the parties' 2008 settlement agreement did not unambiguously release Asarco's claim here. The case was dismissed.
Sierra Club v. Sally Jewell - 8/26/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-5383. Environmental and historical preservation organizations were seeking to protect the historically significant West Virginia Blair Mountain Battlefield site from surface coal mining. The district court granted summary judgment against them, holding that they lack standing because they fail to demonstrate the requisite injury, causation, or redressability. The Panel disagreed and concluded that they have standing to challenge the "Keeper of the Register" decision.
Greenpeace v. Dow Chemical - 8/21/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-CV-685. The case involves alleged corporate espionage, and the issue of whether a corporation has a claim for trespass or conversion against another for rummaging through the corporation's trash in search of "trade secrets" and other confidential information. The Panel said, ". . .Greenpeace's factual allegations may be regarded, [however] Greenpeace's legal arguments cannot prevail as a matter of law, and therefore we affirm the dismissal."
Southwestern Power Admin. v. FERC - 8/22/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1033. The Appeals Court said in part, "Neither section 215(b) nor section 215(e), nor the two considered in combination, speaks with the requisite clarity to waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from monetary penalties. We therefore vacate the Commission's order."
Ctr. for Cmty. Action v. BNSF Railway Co - 8/20/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-56086. The Panel affirmed the district court decision and concluded that Defendants' emission of diesel particulate matter does not constitute "disposal" of solid waste within the meaning of RCRA, and that Plaintiffs therefore cannot state a plausible claim for relief.
Posts
