News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[08/28] Northland Casualty Co. v. Meeks
In an insurance claim by estate of plaintiffs in which defendant-insurer's coverage excluded claims by employees, grant of summary judgment to defendant insurance company is affirmed where: 1) there were no genuine issues of material fact; and 2) the district court correctly determined that the deceased was an employee and not a temporary worker as defined by the insurance policy.

[08/28] Harrison v. Ash, C.O.
In a claim by the estate of plaintiff-inmate, serving 35-day sentence for failure to pay child support, who died after a severe asthma attack in a county jail, judgment denying qualified immunity with respect to defendant officers is reversed and nurses' appeal for lack of jurisdiction is dismissed where: 1) defendant officers were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs because they reasonably responded to his requests for medical attention in a timely manner and defendant officers were entitled to rely upon the medical treatment of nurses once they obtained medical care for plaintiff; and 2) purposes of qualified immunity do not support the extension of the doctrine to nurses employed by a private medical provider.

[08/27] Ramirez v. Knoulton
In a suit alleging excessive force by defendant-police officer for shooting plaintiff during his arrest, denial of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where defendant acted reasonably in deciding to use deadly force, and no constitutional violation therefore occurred.

[08/27] Khorrami v. Rolince
In a suit alleging violations of due-process rights by government agents who detained plaintiff while investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a grant of qualified immunity to defendants is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the district court's deferral of a ruling on the government's qualified immunity motion was not equivalent to a denial of the motion.

[08/26] Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.

More...

Environmental Law

[08/25] US v. MV Sanctuary
Warrant authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to inspect the M/V Sanctuary for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is affirmed where the EPA has authority to obtain an administrative warrant to carry out its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

[08/20] El Comite para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam
In a challenge under section 304 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) brought by a coalition of community organizations against California state officials responsible for designing and implementing a state air quality plan, challenging the process by which EPA approval of the plan was obtained and the final outcome of the approval process, summary judgment for plaintiff and a remedies order are reversed and vacated where, because section 304 of the CAA provides jurisdiction only to enforce an "emission standard or limitation," and because the challenged conduct did not implicate such a standard or limitation, the court was without jurisdiction to order a remedy.

[08/20] James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Engineering, Inc.
In plaintiff-insurer's claim seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to provide a legal defense to defendant-insured, dismissal of claim is vacated where: 1) district court erred in holding that the pollution exclusion does not apply; and 2) the pollution exclusion clearly covers the claims asserted against defendant.

[08/19] Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
In an action challenging an EPA rule preventing state and local authorities from supplementing emissions-monitoring requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA), petition for review is granted in part and denied in part where: 1) the rule preventing supplementing of requirements was unambiguously precluded by Title V of the CAA; but 2) the monitoring requirements enumerated in 40 C.F.R. section 70 were consistent with the mandate of the CAA.

[08/18] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.
States' and public interest organizations' petition for review of a rule issued by the NHTSA setting corporate average fuel economy tandards for light trucks, including many SUVs and other vehicles, is granted where: 1) the rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close an SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in a particular weight class; and 2) an Environmental Assessment was inadequate under NEPA and petitioners raised a substantial question as to whether the rule may have a significant impact on the environment. (Substituted opinion)

More...