From: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Environmental
(U.S. 9th Cir., Attorney's Fees, Contracts, Environmental Law) In
an action claiming unlawful discharge of pesticides into U.S.
waters, denial of plaintiff's application for attorney's fees is
reversed where plaintiff was a prevailing party because the
settlement agreement at issue effected a material alteration in the
legal relationship between the parties.
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. US Bureau of Land Mgmt.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Administrative Law, Attorney's Fees, Environmental
Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In an action
against the Bureau of Land Management seeking a preliminary
injunction against a timber sale, a grant of attorney's fees to
plaintiff is reversed where plaintiff was not a prevailing party
within the meaning of the Equal Access to Justice Act because,
before judgment, the Bureau withdrew its challenged decision.
Provincial Gov't. of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Injury And Tort
Law, International Law) In an action by a Philippine island
claiming that an American company polluted its waters, dismissal of
the action on forum non conveniens grounds is reversed where the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the act of
state doctrine because none of the conduct by the Philippine
government referenced by defendants was essential to any of the
plaintiff's causes of action.
US v. APW N. Am.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In an appeal
from the denial of a motion to intervene in an action filed by the
EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the order is reversed where, under
CERCLA, a non-settling potentially responsible party (PRP) may
intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a
settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the
settling PRP.
US v. APW N. Am.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In an appeal
from the denial of a motion to intervene in an action filed by the
EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the order is reversed where, under
CERCLA, a non-settling potentially responsible party (PRP) may
intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a
settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the
settling PRP.
WildEarth Guardians v. US Forest Serv.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Environmental Law) In an action
challenging the Forest Service's approval of the venting of methane
gas from a mine on the ground that it violated the National
Environmental Policy Act, denial of mine owner's motion to
intervene is reversed where the owner was entitled to intervene as
of right because it had a direct economic stake in the subject of
the litigation.
<...