News
Read More
Articles
Federal Sentencing Guidelines
As strange as it may sound, corporations can be found guilty of crimes, including violations of federal and state environmental laws. Businesses can be fined heavily and barred from carrying on certain types of business entities, and responsible individuals within the company may also be penalized.
Read More
Environmental and Conservation Easements
Conservation easements are emerging as powerful techniques for individual landowners who wish to preserve land and the environment. These easements allow landowners to make a direct contribution toward conservation while at the same time taking advantage of personal financial incentives. An attorney versed in environmental law and financial, estate, or tax planning can advise individual property owners on the best course of action to preserve the environment while simultaneously protecting their financial interests.
Read More
|
|
Case Summaries
[06/19]
Evergreen Partnering Group v. Pactiv Corporation
Judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint which alleged that defendants, polystyrene food service packaging manufacturers and two trade associations, refused in concert to deal with plaintiff in a recycling business method for polystyrene food service products, is vacated and remanded, where the allegations in plaintiff's complaint are sufficient to support a plausible conspiracy claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act.
[06/17]
City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Commission
In consolidated appeals involving the defendant Commission's determination that the development mandated by plaintiff's nuisance abatement ordinance required a coastal development permit: 1) the trial court properly invalidated the Commission's determination that the development mandated by the ordinance requires a permit; but 2) the trial court erred in restricting the Commission from exercising jurisdiction over the development mandated by the ordinance without first determining in plaintiff city's case whether the plaintiff city was acting properly within the scope of its nuisance abatement powers reserved to it pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30005(b).
[06/13]
Conservation Congress v. US Forest Service
The district court's order denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin a federal defendants' authorization of a timber sale known as the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project for allegedly failing to evaluate the effects of the Mudflow Project on the Northern Spotted Owl’s critical habitat, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, is affirmed, where: 1) the appeal was not rendered moot by a new 2013 habitat designation, and subsequent reinstatement of informal consultation between the defendants United States Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits as to its Endangered Species Act claim that federal defendants arbitrarily or capriciously approved the Mudflow Project.
[06/13]
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
In a challenge to defendant's concession agreement, which was implemented as part of the Clean Truck Program to govern the relationship between the defendant's Port and drayage companies whose short-haul companies move cargo into and out of the Port, the Ninth Circuit's judgment finding only the driver employment provision of the agreement preempted, is reversed in part and remanded, where: 1) the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act expressly preempts the concession agreement's placard and parking requirements because defendant's placard and parking requirements relate to a motor carrier's price, route, or service with respect to transporting property, and have the force and effect of law; but 2) this Court declines to decide in the case's present, pre-enforcement posture whether Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., limits the way the Port can enforce the financial-capacity and truck-maintenance requirements upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
Read More
|
