Search this blog
Subscribe for updates
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Eighth Circuit Upholds Finding that Dico Arranged For Disposal under CERCLA
- Supreme Court Finds Duty to Warn of Potential Asbestos Exposure and Adopts a Required Part Standard in Maritime Toxic Tort Context
- MDL Court Denies Response Contractors’ Motions to Dismiss in Gold King Mine Case
- EDPA Dismisses Putative Class Action Nuisance and Negligence
- MDL Court Finds Federal Government Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity for Gold King Mine Release
Topics
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Minimg
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Class Actions
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Combustion
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Title V
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Maryland.
Yes, the per curium opinions in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, et al., No. 1804, September Term, 2009 (Md. Spec. App Feb. 9, 2012) are over a month old, but at 309 pages, it isn’t light reading. It takes a while to digest the five different opinions and try to reconcile, in any reasonable fashion, what they say. And while several issues were addressed by the court, we’re going to focus here on a favorite tort – medical monitoring. Read More »
