ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

FEBRUARY 23, 2022

The court described the case as “an unprecedented case for any court, let alone a state court trial judge,” but concluded that it was “still a tort case” and “based exclusively on state law causes of action,” primarily failures to disclose, failures to warn, and deceptive marketing. Citing Massachusetts v.

Court 81

Court Tort Cause of Action Litigation 81

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.” 1500 Massachusetts Avenue. particularly those with ravenous monkeys.

Tort 43

Tort Litigation Litigating Manufacturing 43

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. Haaland , No. 1:21-cv-02317 (D.D.C.,

Litigation 40

Litigation Litigating Court Laws 40