JonathanTurley
OCTOBER 30, 2023
The court ruled against her and found that the park’s duty was only to “make conditions as safe as they appear to be” and that Munoz “ was aware of the risk she encountered, and expected to be surprised, startled, and scared.” particularly those with ravenous monkeys.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. , BP p.l.c. ,
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
46 
Let's personalize your content