Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
- Tenth Circuit Clarifies Diligent Prosecution Bar to Citizen Suits under Clean Air Act
- Eleventh Circuit Allows Federal Officer Removal for EPA-Directed Cleanup
- Supreme Court Holds FIFRA Preempts State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claims Challenging EPA-Approved Labels
- California Federal Court Holds Agencies May Be Liable Under Clean Air Act Citizen Suit Provision
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Agency Action
- Council on Environmental Quality
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- 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
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- 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
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- 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
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- CISWI
- Boiler MACT
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Dukes
- CLE
- Discovery
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Farming
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Toxic Torts
- Third Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Mineral Rights
- Royalties
- Real Estate
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 2 posts from November 2024.
In joint tortfeasor settlements in private party actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), courts can choose from two competing federal contribution protection methods: the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (“UCFA”), known as pro rata, and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCATA”), known as pro tanto. Last month, in City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County v The Lofts of Alameda, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00809-JCH-GBW, 2024 WL 4512434, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico considered the merits of both contribution protection methods and concluded that the pro rata approach was the most equitable under the circumstances. Read More »
On October 29, 2024 in Dawson v. Murphy, et al., the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim that New Jersey’s investment of state pension funds into oil and gas companies which allegedly harm the environment constitutes a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”). No. A-3083-22, 2024 WL 4601708 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2024). In an unpublished opinion, the Court held that that the New Jersey Constitution does not guarantee a right to a stable environment and therefore the state’s investments did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Read More »
