Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Fourth Circuit Clarifies Irreparable Harm Showing Required to Obtain Preliminary Injunction to Prevent PFAS Discharges in Excess of Permit Limits
- Fourth Circuit “Decline[s] to Hit Pause” on Pipeline Project Involving Trenching Through Streams and Wetlands
- When Does NEPA Apply? The Eleventh Circuit Draws a Hard Line in Friends of the Everglades v. DHS
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Stigma
- Damages
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Cancer
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- Toxic Torts
- Third Circuit
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Enforcement Action
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Royalties
- Real Estate
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 2 posts from December 2023.
On December 6, 2023, in Short Creek Development v. MFA Incorporated, No 22-05021, 2023 WL 8452430 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2023), a Federal District Court in Missouri held that Defendant Missouri Farmers Association, Inc. ("MFA") failed to demonstrate that a divisibility of harm exception to the rule of joint and several liability should be applied in apportioning responsibility to pay for the cleanup costs at a fertilizer plant. The case underscores the challenges associated with establishing divisibility of harm in a CERCLA action. Read More »
In In Re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 2:20-cv-03785 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the special master granted a motion to compel discovery of documents relating to an internal investigation performed by outside counsel for defendant FirstEnergy Corp. (“First Energy”) regarding the company’s role in an alleged bribery scheme. Because of a lack of admissible supporting evidence, the special master rejected the company’s position that the materials were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and ordered FirstEnergy to produce all documents related to the internal investigation. Read More »
|
Email|
Comments|
Topics: Attorney-Client, Evidence, Internal Investigation, Privilege, Work Product
