Remove Court Decisions Remove Court Rules Remove Maryland Remove Statute
article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The case was currently pending before the Fourth Circuit after a federal district court in Maryland held that Maryland law preempted the local law. The appellate court also found that even if the trial court erred, the error was harmless because the State proved both acts beyond a reasonable doubt. Zepeda , No.

Court 55
article thumbnail

July 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The district court ruled that EPA was required to conduct such evaluations in October 2016 and set an expedited schedule for EPA’s compliance. ADDITION TO THE NON-U.S.

Court 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

October 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline.

Court 40
article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.

Court 42
article thumbnail

August 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. The Ninth Circuit declined to remand with instructions for dismissal of the underlying action and also declined to vacate any district court decisions.

Court 40