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
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- 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
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- 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
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- 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
- Damages
- Fair Market Value
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Stigma
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- 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
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Privilege
- Expert Witness
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Consultant Liability
- Response Action Contractors
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Army Corps
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Cancer
- Air
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Toxic Torts
- Third Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Marcellus Shale
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Real Estate
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 3 posts in Evidence.
On July 9th, 2025, the Eastern District of New York ruled on a series of motions in Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Company, a case brought by the Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) against chemical manufacturers for the alleged contamination of Suffolk’s groundwater supply with 1,4-dioxane (“dioxane”), a chemical classified by the EPA as a “probable human carcinogen.” Judge Gershon issued an opinion allowing most of the plaintiff’s common law tort claims to proceed to trial while clarifying the standard for expert admissibility under recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read More »
|
Email|
Comments|
Topics: Causation, Contamination, Drinking Water, Evidence, Expert Witness, Groundwater, Negligence, New York, Nuisance, Pollutants, Strict Liability, Trespass, Water
On January 2, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Michaels in a series of cases related to the corrosive water in Flint, Michigan. Carthan, et al. v. Snyder et al, No. 5:16-cv-1044 (E.D. Mich. 2024). The court held that Dr. Michaels, in applying a methodology commonly employed by epidemiologists known as the Bradford Hill guidelines, failed to establish an association between corrosive water and skin and hair conditions, and without such, the testimony was unreliable and could not be used to infer causation between Flint water and reported skin rashes and hair loss. 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
