
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Groundwater Connection to Navigable Waters Sufficient for CWA Violation
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decides EQT Case, Holding Daily Penalties Do Not Accrue for Continuing Presence of Pollutants In Waters of the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Corporate Officer May Be Liable for Deliberate Inaction under Participation Theory
- Fifth Circuit Affirms $81 Million Clean Water Act Civil Penalty
- New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds Historic NRD Settlement; Environmental Groups Appeal
Topics
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Lease Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Boiler MACT
- Laches
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Standing
- Procedure
- 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
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- 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
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Mineral Rights
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Texas.
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling to decertify a class action filed by landowners for releases from Exxon’s 850-mile Pegasus Pipeline that crosses four states from Texas to Illinois. The case, Webb, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., Dkt. No. 15-2879 (8th Cir., May 11, 2017), was filed by a group of landowners who claimed that Exxon materially breached the terms of their right-of-way easement agreements by allegedly failing to inspect, maintain, repair, and replace the pipeline, which was originally installed in the mid-1940s. At various times since the 1980s, the pipeline had releases in Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri, which the plaintiffs claim resulted in damage to their properties. The plaintiffs sought to rescind their right-of-way easement agreements and force Exxon to remove or replace the entire pipeline, or in the alternative, to be paid damages for breach of contract and diminution in property value. Read More »