Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- 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
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- 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
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- 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
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Contamination
- Procedure
- Natural Gas
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- 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
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- Second Circuit
- Standing
- NPDES
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Certification
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Expert Witness
- Work Product
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Farming
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Cancer
- Air
- Emissions
- Combustion
- Waste
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Cost Recovery
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Real Estate
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Martime.
Last week, the United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that in the maritime toxic tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires asbestos components to be subsequently incorporated into the product for it to properly function. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, slip op. at 9-10 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2019). The products at issue – shipping components including pumps, blowers, and turbines – required the addition of asbestos insulation or asbestos parts to properly function. The plaintiffs, two Navy veterans, were exposed to asbestos in the shipping components, and alleged that this exposure caused them to develop cancer. Although the Supreme Court’s decision is limited to the maritime toxic tort context, the DeVries decision will nevertheless cause many product manufacturers pause as they consider their obligations for issuing appropriate warnings for products that they know will ultimately have asbestos or other hazardous materials integrated into the product before it reaches an end-user. Read More »
