Cases

ORDER * This appeal was brought from the district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss counterclaims alleged to be improper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 13. Ordinarily, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from such an order because the order does not represent a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The term “final decision” has been interpreted to cover a small category of collateral

OPINION WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is the extent to which a reorganization plan proposed under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(5) preempts otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law. Section 1123(a) was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. That section specifies what must be included in a reorganization plan under Chapter 11 and closely parallels § 216(10)

298 F.Supp.2d 930 (2003) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE NON-FERROUS CORPORATION et al., Defendants. And Related Cross and Counter-Claims No. CIVF97-5016 OWW LJO. United States District Court, E.D. California. July 28, 2003. *931 *932

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: According to the complaint in this case, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) disperses wood treatment chemicals from various of its facilities into San Francisco and Humboldt Bays via indirect and direct stormwater discharges. The Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §

Filed 3/18/21 (unmodified opn. attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JOHN D. SWEENEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A153583, A153585 v. (Solano County CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER Super. Ct. Nos. FCS048136 and QUALITY

350 F.3d 932 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation; PG & E Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.People of the State of CALIFORNIA, ex. rel. CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Board, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bo

BOUDIN, Chief Judge. This is a dispute between Boston Gas Company (“Boston Gas”), the largest pro *11 vider of natural gas in the New England area, and one of its insurers, Century Indemnity Company (“Century”). Before natural gas became the primary source of energy in New England, Boston Gas produced

47 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1228 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. C048336. Court of Appeal of California, Third District. August 2, 2006. *96 Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney Gene

459 F.Supp.2d 874 (2006) PEOPLE of the State of California ex rel. Bill LOCKYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Mike Johanns, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendant(s). The Wilderness Society, California Wilderness Coalition, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture; Dale Bosworth, Chief of the United States For

Filed 5/23/16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM B. WEBB et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Appellants, ) S209927 ) v. ) Ct.App. 2/1 B233189 ) SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., ) Los Angeles County )

Opinion MOSK, J. Section 1759 of the Public Utilities Code1 declares that no court except this Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review any order or decision of the Public Utilities Commission (hereafter the commission) or to interfere with the commission in the performance of its duties. Section 2106, however, authorizes an action in superior court for damages caused by any unlaw

751 F.2d 1287 21 ERC 2174, 243 U.S.App.D.C. 68, 15Envtl. L. Rep. 20,822 SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, et al., Petitioners,v.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and United States of America,Respondents,Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor.SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, et al., Petitioners,v.NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and United States of America,Respondents,Pacific Ga

ACCEPTED 03-14-00661-CV 4251520 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AU

Filed 11/27/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A152988 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN FRANCISCO (Alameda County REGION,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CASTEL, District Judge. Plaintiff The Narragansett Electric Company (“Narragansett”) brings this action for damages and declaratory relief against defendants American Home Assurance Company (“American Home”), Century Indemnity Company (“Century”), Equitas Insurance Limited (“EIL”), and Dominion Insurance Company Ltd., Excess Insurance Company Ltd., National Casualty Company, t

Robin B. Quinn, Personal Representative for Jo Ann Allen v. General Electric Company, et al., Misc. No. 2, September Term, 2025 PRODUCTS LIABILITY – STRICT LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT – ASBESTOS – Supreme Court of Maryland held that with respect to strict liability design defect claim in asbestos product case, household member of consumer or user of product at issue who alleges injury based on exposure, through no fault of their own, to asbestos dust brought home on work clothing of consumer or u

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 889 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 890 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.-, Damages Caused By Breach Of Contract; Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 702 (Experts); Remand. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER ON REMAND REGARDING BREACH OF CONTRACT DAMAGES BRADEN, Judge. <

OPINION KLEINFELD, Senior Circuit Judge: We affirm the district court’s decision that a California law governing cleanup of a federal nuclear site violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Because we decide that the state law impermissibly regulates and discriminates against the federal government and its contractor, we do not reach the questi

ACCEPTED 07-14-00405-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 2/18/2015 4:43:44 PM