Remove 2008 Remove Clean Air Act Remove Climate Scientist Remove Greenhouse
article thumbnail

Climate Litigation Chart Updates – November 2016

Law Columbia

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to fulfill its non-discretionary obligation under Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act to conduct evaluations of loss or shifts in employment that might result from implementation of the Clean Air Act. Murray Energy Corp. McCarthy , No. 5:14 -cv-39 (N.D.

2016 40
article thumbnail

October 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Law Columbia

In addition, the court rejected the contention that the Clean Air Act or foreign affairs doctrine completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims and also indicated that federal common law would not provide a basis for complete preemption. Court Dismissed Counterclaims in Climate Scientist’s Defamation Lawsuit.

2019 40
article thumbnail

May 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Columbia Climate Law

EPA of a 2015 rule barring replacement of ozone-depleting substances with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are powerful greenhouse gases. The court also found that denial of the permit application based on State Environmental Policy Act substantive authority was not clearly erroneous. Circuit’s partial vacatur in Mexichem Fluor, Inc.

2020 40