Cases

851 A.2d 228 (2004) TEXAS KEYSTONE INCORPORATED, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Argued February 2, 2004. Decided June 7, 2004. *230 Gerald J. Stubenhofer, Jr., Pittsburgh, for petitioner. Linda S. Lloyd, Harrisburg, for respondent

505 F.Supp.2d 359 (2007) MGM WELL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEGA LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. H-05-1634. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. April 25, 2007. *360 *361 *362 *363

671 So.2d 370 (1995) William Daniel HAMMONS v. ABB C-E SERVICES, INC. and Transportation Insurance Company. No. 94 CA 2444. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. October 6, 1995. *372 J. Arthur Smith, III, Baton Rouge, for Plaintiff-Appellee William D. Hammons. Kirk L. Landry, Baton Rouge, for Defendants-Appellants

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-183L (Filed: March 13, 2018)* *Opinion originally filed under seal on February 23, 2018 ) IDEKER FARMS, INC., et al., ) ) Fifth Amendment Taking; Missouri Plaintiffs, ) River; Flooding; Liability; Causation;

Funke, J. The Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) granted the application filed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (TransCanada), pursuant to the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (MOPSA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 57-1401 to 57-1413 (Reissue

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. OPINION JUSTICE DOUGHERTY *221Appellants, the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), appeal from the order of the Commonwealth Court invalidating a jurisdictional agree

817 F.Supp.2d 515 (2011) MEDEVAC MIDATLANTIC, LLC, Plaintiff, v. KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN, Defendant. Civil No. 10-1036. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 31, 2011. *516 David L. Comerford, Matthew Ryan Varzally, Katherine M. Katchen, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER RUDY LOZANO, Judge, United States District Court This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Continental Insurance Company (“Continental”), on June 8, 2015 (DE# 23), and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Plaintiff as to Liability on Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint and Counts I, II and IV of Defendants’ Amended Counterclaims,

*19MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J. ¶ 1. In March 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature passed Act 10,1 a budget repair bill proposed by Governor Scott Walker. Act 10 significantly altered Wisconsin's public employee labor laws. Act 10 prohibits general employees from collectively bargaining on issues other than b

771 F.Supp.2d 382 (2011) MFS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Thomas A. DiLAZARO, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-2508. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. February 16, 2011. *386 Thomas J. Zagami, Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, P.A., Columbia, MD, Wayne C. Stansfield, Brooke N. Wallace, Reed Smith LLP, Philadelphia, P

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., Chief Judge. I.THE ELEMENTS OF CERCLA LIABILITY1 1. This Court has previously held that in order to establish liability for response costs under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), Plaintiffs must make a four-part showing. First, Plaintiffs must prove that the Site is a “facility” as defined by CERCLA

482 F.Supp.2d 390 (2007) PFIZER INC., Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, G.D. Searle & Co., G.D. Searle LLC, Searle LLC (Delaware) and Searle LLC (Nevada) Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Defendant. No. CIV.A. 04-754(JCL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 20, 2007.

OPINION & ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiffs bring challenges to certain zoning and environmental ordinances enacted by Defendant Village of Pomona (the “Village”), alleging they are unlawful under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Aet of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42

CHAPTER 11 OPINION ROSEMARY GAMBARDELLA, BANKRUPTCY JUDGE MatteR Before the Court Before the Court is Consolidated Debtor G-I Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the *724New York City Housing Authority’s Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. A hearing was conducted on the matter on February 2

OPINION AND ORDER BLOCK, Judge. Before this court are cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). The underlying claim is predicated on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1 In essence, plaintiffs are alleging a “temporary taking”2 of its solid waste disposal site due to a wrongf

754 F.Supp.2d 723 (2010) RHJ MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DUBOIS, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:09-131. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. December 7, 2010. *726 Leonard J. Marsico, Alyssa Barillari, McGuire Woods, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff. Thomas J. Elliott, Melissa M. Weber, Elliott Gree

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 30-DEC-2025 12:03 PM

559 F.3d 1260 (2009) ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2007-5169. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. March 12, 2009. *1261 Geoffrey G. Slaughter, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, of Indianapolis, Indiana, argued for plaintiff-appellee. On the brief was Robert

859 F.2d 156 28 ERC 1401, 273 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 57USLW 2185,19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,016 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner,v.U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Lee M. Thomas,Administrator, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Respondents,Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Iron & SteelInstitute, Edison Electric Institute, et al., Cincinnati Gas& El

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Ripeness................................................................189 II. The NEPA-Related Regulations..........................................191 A. Permit Conditions Unrelated to Effluents — Ripeness..................192 B. Permit Conditions Unrelated to Effluents