Part of a series on |
Environmental law |
---|
Pollution control law |
Natural resources law |
Reference materials |
Related topics |
|
On this page, environmental lawsuit means "a lawsuit where the well-being of an environmental asset or the well-being of a set of environmental assets is in dispute". Also on this page, lawsuit with environmental relevance means "a lawsuit where a non-environmental entity or a set of non-environmental entities is in dispute, but whose outcome has relevance for an environmental asset or for a set of environmental assets".
Because the distinction between the two types of lawsuit is not clearly defined, it is beneficial to keep the two lists together on one page, but separated according to that distinction.
Lawsuit(s) | Environmental asset(s) and subject(s) of lawsuit(s) | Court(s) of decision(s) | Year(s) of decision(s) |
---|---|---|---|
A-G v Geothermal Produce | General environment: pollution from pesticide spray | Court of Appeal of New Zealand | 1987 |
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA | Air: authority to overrule state decisions about technology | Supreme Court of the United States | 2004 |
Aldred's Case | Aesthetics: smell from pig sty | 1610 | |
Allison, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corp, et al. | Land and aquifers: gasoline leak from service station | 2009 | |
Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) | Workplace: asbestos | Supreme Court of Canada | 1993 |
American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut | Climate: greenhouse gas emissions | Supreme Court of the United States | 2011 |
Anderson v. Cryovac | Water: toxic contamination | United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | 1986 |
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | General environment: production and disposal of nuclear fuel | Supreme Court of the United States | 1983 |
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC | Crop of peanuts: damage by pesticide | Supreme Court of the United States | 2005 |
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. | Aesthetics: dirt, smoke, and vibration | New York Court of Appeals | 1970 |
Burmah Oil Co. v Lord Advocate | Oil fields: destruction during World War II | Courts of Scotland | 1965 |
Cardwell v. American Bridge Co. | Waterways: common highways | Supreme Court of the United States | 1885 |
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia | Recycling: bottle deposit | High Court of Australia | 1990 |
Central Green Co. v. United States | Land: meaning of "flood or flood waters" | Supreme Court of the United States | 2001 |
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt | Cleanliness: interstate importation fee for disposal of hazardous waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 1992 |
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | Air: emissions from new equipment and total emissions from plant | Supreme Court of the United States | 1984 |
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe | Parkland: highway routing | Supreme Court of the United States | 1971 |
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey | Cleanliness: interstate importation of waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 1978 |
Climate change litigation and the California Environmental Quality Act | General environment: climate change | ||
Cline v. American Aggregates Corporation | Water in aquifer: pollution | Supreme Court of Ohio | 1984 |
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council | Water: gold mine waste disposal in Lower Slate Lake | Supreme Court of the United States | 2009 |
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States | Water: supply | Supreme Court of the United States | 1976 |
Commonwealth v Tasmania | Water: hydroelectric dam on Gordon River | High Court of Australia | 1983 |
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health | General environment: quarantine | Supreme Court of the United States | 1902 |
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen | Air: pollution from international transport | Supreme Court of the United States | 2004 |
Dolan v. City of Tigard | Land: paving a parking lot, and providing a greenway and a pedestrian and bicycle pathway | Supreme Court of the United States | 1994 |
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group | Workplace: nuclear accidents | Supreme Court of the United States | 1978 |
Edwards v National Coal Board | Land: preventing accidental rock fall in coal mine | 1949 | |
Entergy v. Riverkeeper | Water: cooling water intakes for power plants | Supreme Court of the United States | 2009 |
Environment Agency v Clark | Land: compliance with landfill licence terms | ||
Environmental Defence Society v New Zealand King Salmon | General environment: salmon farming | Supreme Court of New Zealand | 2014 |
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation | Air: emissions in relation to modifications to power plants | Supreme Court of the United States | 2007 |
Ernst v. EnCana Corporation, 2013 ABQB 537 | Aquifer: contamination from hydraulic fracturing | ||
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker | Water and land: compensation for victims of oil spill | Supreme Court of the United States | 2008 |
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation | Water: hydroelectric power from Niagara Falls | Supreme Court of the United States | 1960 |
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. | Water: industrial pollution of North Tyger River | Supreme Court of the United States | 2000 |
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association | Workplace: hazardous waste materials | Supreme Court of the United States | 1992 |
Geer v. Connecticut | Wildlife: interstate transportation of wild fowl | Supreme Court of the United States | 1896 |
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd | Soundscape: noise pollution | High Court of Justice | 1992 |
Greenpeace v. Eni | General environment: climate change | Civil Court of Rome | 2024 |
Hadacheck v. Sebastian | Aesthetics: pollution from manufacture of clay bricks | Supreme Court of the United States | 1915 |
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) | Forests: duty to consult Aboriginal groups before exploiting resources | Supreme Court of Canada | 2004 |
Stephanie Hallowich, H/W, v. Range Resources Corporation | General environment: pollution from hydraulic fracturing | Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania (Civil Division) | 2011 |
Hanousek v. United States | Water and land: oil spill from ruptured pipeline | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 1999 |
Held v. Montana | Effect of climate change on youth | First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Montana | 2023 |
Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar | Water: offshore drilling | United States federal courts | ongoing |
Hughes v. Oklahoma | Wildlife: federal legislation | Supreme Court of the United States | 1979 |
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois | Submerged land: construction by railroad company | Supreme Court of the United States | 1892 |
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co. v. American Cyanamid Co. | Land and water: acrylonitrile spilled from train | United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 1990 |
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute | Workplace: exposure to benzene | Supreme Court of the United States | 1980 |
Interprovincial Cooperatives v. The Queen | Water: interprovincial river pollution | Supreme Court of Canada | 1975 |
Kansas v. Colorado | Supreme Court of the United States | 1902, 1907, 1943, 1995, 2001, 2004, 2009 | |
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation | Climate: destruction of a community by climate change | United States federal courts | 2009 |
Kleppe v. New Mexico | Wildlife: horses and burros | Supreme Court of the United States | 1976 |
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District | Wetlands: development and mitigation | Supreme Court of the United States | 2013 |
Kruger and al. v. The Queen | Wildlife: hunting of deer by Aboriginals out of season | Supreme Court of Canada | 1978 |
Kvikk case | Electromagnetic radiation: congenital disorders | ||
Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC | Water: pollution from stormwater | Supreme Court of the United States | 2013 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council | Coastland: erecting homes | Supreme Court of the United States | 1992 |
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife | Wildlife: geographical limits of a section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 | Supreme Court of the United States | 1992 |
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association | Forests: road building and timber harvesting | Supreme Court of the United States | 1988 |
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath | Water and land: land encroachment causing swelling of Beas River and washing away of land | Supreme Court of India | 1997 |
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India | Air: pollution causing a hazard to community of Delhi | Supreme Court of India | |
Maine v. Taylor | Fisheries: interstate importation of fish | Supreme Court of the United States | 1986 |
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency | Air: regulation of greenhouse gases | Supreme Court of the United States | 2007 |
McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services | General environment: disposal of hazardous waste | 1987 | |
McLaren v. Caldwell | Waterways: common highways | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom | 1884 |
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy | General environment: restarting reactor | Supreme Court of the United States | 1983 |
Missouri v. Holland | Wildlife: hunting migratory waterfowl | Supreme Court of the United States | 1920 |
Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Clay May | Land: weed propagation | Supreme Court of the United States | 1904 |
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser | Farmland: deliberate propagation of canola contaminated by genetically modified organisms | Supreme Court of Canada | 2004 |
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms | Farmland: genetically modified alfalfa | Supreme Court of the United States | 2010 |
Montreal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc. | Soundscape: invasive music | Supreme Court of Canada | 2005 |
Morrison v. Olson | Land: Superfund law regarding hazardous waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 1988 |
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife | Water and wildlife: granting state authority over anti-pollution statutes | Supreme Court of the United States | 2007 |
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court | Water: supply from Mono Lake | Supreme Court of California | 1983 |
New Jersey v. Delaware | Water: liquefied natural gas pipeline | Supreme Court of the United States | 2008 |
New York v. United States | General environment: disposal of radioactive waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 1992 |
Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. | Land: remediation of expropriated mill property | Supreme Court of Canada | 2012 |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission | Coastland: erecting a house, and providing a public easement | Supreme Court of the United States | 1987 |
North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council | Water in Auckland Region: urban development | Environment Court of New Zealand | 1996 |
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance | Wilderness: preservation | Supreme Court of the United States | 2004 |
Nulyarimma v Thompson | Water: mining company draining Lake Eyre | Federal Court of Australia | 1999 |
Operation Dismantle v. The Queen | General environment: military tests increasing risk or nuclear war | Supreme Court of Canada | 1985 |
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon | Cleanliness: interstate disposal of waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 1994 |
Overseas Hibakusha Case | Electromagnetic radiation at natural levels: health-care benefits for hibakusha | Supreme Court of Japan | 1957, 1968, 1974, 1978, 1995, 2003, 2005 |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island | Wetlands: development | Supreme Court of the United States | 2001 |
Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources | Wildlife: introduced species (goats and sheep) | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 1981 |
Partridge v Crittenden | Wildlife: advertising brambling cocks and hens | Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales | 1968 |
People v. the Brooklyn Cooperage Company | Forests: logging in Adirondack Park | New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division | 1906 |
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology | Water: hydroelectric power from Dosewallips River | Supreme Court of the United States | 1994 |
R v Stephens | Water: quarry refuse dumped into river | Queen's Bench Division | 1866 |
R (Jackson) v Attorney General | Wildlife: hunting foxes and hares | House of Lords of the United Kingdom | 2005, 2006 |
R. v. Badger | Wildlife: hunting by Aboriginals on private land | Supreme Court of Canada | 1996 |
R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie | Water: locating a waste disposal site near a stream | Supreme Court of Canada | 1978 |
R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd. | Water: ocean dumping | Supreme Court of Canada | 1988 |
R. v. Hydro-Québec | Water: dumping polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the St. Maurice River | Supreme Court of Canada | 1997 |
R. v. Jim | Wildlife: hunting by Aboriginals on Indian reserves | British Columbia Supreme Court | 1915 |
R. v. Van der Peet | Fisheries: Aboriginal fishing rights extending to selling | Supreme Court of Canada | 1996 |
Rapanos v. United States | Wetlands: filling with sand | Supreme Court of the United States | 2006 |
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation | Wildlife: irrigation damaging endangered species | U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals | 2010 |
Rylands v Fletcher | Water and land: reservoir flooding adjacent land | House of Lords of the United Kingdom | 1868 |
Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State | General environment: atomic bombs damaging Hiroshima and Nagasaki | District Court of Tokyo | 1963 |
S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection | Water: hydroelectric dams discharging into Presumpscot River | Supreme Court of the United States | 2006 |
Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. The City of Manhattan Beach | General environment: plastic bags | Supreme Court of California | 2011 |
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission | Aesthetics and conservation: construction of power plant | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | 1965 |
Sierra Club v. Babbitt | Endangered species: high-density housing | United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama | 1998 |
Sierra Club v. Morton | Parkland: development | Supreme Court of the United States | 1972 |
Slaughter-House Cases | Water: slaughterhouse waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 1873 |
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers | Water: waste disposal | Supreme Court of the United States | 2001 |
South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe | Wetlands (Everglades): pollution from storm water in canal | Supreme Court of the United States | 2004 |
Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas | Water: exportation of water | Supreme Court of the United States | 1982 |
St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R | Forests: land title | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | 1888 |
St. Louis v. Myers | Water: rights of landowners beside Mississippi River | Supreme Court of the United States | 1885 |
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp | Water: disposal of waste from insecticide production | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | 1986, 1988 |
Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection | Beaches: beach renourishment | Supreme Court of the United States | 2010 |
Summers v. Earth Island Institute | Forests: sale of fire-damaged timber | Supreme Court of the United States | 2009 |
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | Water: supply from Lake Tahoe Basin | Supreme Court of the United States | 2002 |
Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment | Environment of Kiribati: climate change and immigration | Court of Appeal of New Zealand | 2014 |
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill | Habitat: destruction by hydroelectric dams | Supreme Court of the United States | 1978 |
Tri-state water dispute | Water: supply from Lake Lanier | undecided | |
Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia | Forests: land title | Supreme Court of Canada | 2014 |
Tuna-Dolphin GATT Case (I and II) | Marine biology: seine fishing | Panel of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and World Trade Organization | |
United Haulers Assn. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth. | Cleanliness: interstate exportation of waste | Supreme Court of the United States | 2007 |
United States v. 50 Acres of Land | Land: compensation for replacing condemned landfill | Supreme Court of the United States | 1984 |
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins | Fisheries: shark finning | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 2008 |
United States v. Bestfoods | Land: pollution from chemical manufacturing plant | Supreme Court of the United States | 1998 |
United States v. Dion | Wildlife: American Indians hunting eagles | Supreme Court of the United States | 1986 |
United States v. Locke | Water: regulation of maritime activity | Supreme Court of the United States | 2000 |
United States v. Reserve Mining Company | Water (Lake Superior): tailings (i.e., mine waste) | United States district court in Minneapolis | 1974 |
United States v. Riverside Bayview | Wetlands: placement of fill materials | Supreme Court of the United States | 1985 |
United States v. SCRAP | Recycling: railroad freight rate | Supreme Court of the United States | 1973 |
United States v. Washington | Fisheries: rights of Native Americans | United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | 1974 |
United States v. Weitzenhoff | Water: ocean dumping | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals | 1993 |
United States v. Winans | Fisheries: Americans using a fish wheel to catch salmon | Supreme Court of the United States | 1905 |
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency | Air: regulation of greenhouse gas emissions | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia | 2012 |
Vatican Radio lawsuit | Electromagnetic radiation: health effects from non-ionizing radiation | ||
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | General environment: rulemaking, and environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle | Supreme Court of the United States | 1978 |
Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board | General environment: waste disposal | Durban and Coast Local Division | 1993 |
Ward v. Canada (Attorney General) | Fishing and hunting: catching seals and selling their pelts | Supreme Court of Canada | 2002 |
West Virginia v. EPA | Clean power plan issues | U.S. Court of Appeals | 2022 |
Wheeler v Saunders Ltd | Aesthetics: smell from pig houses | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | 1994 |
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. | Air: ozone and particulate matter | Supreme Court of the United States | 2001 |
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council | Biophony: navy sonar harming whales and other marine mammals | Supreme Court of the United States | 2008 |
Winters v. United States | Water: rights of American Indians | Supreme Court of the United States | 1908 |
Wisconsin v. Illinois | Water: supply from the Great Lakes | Supreme Court of the United States | 1929 |
Wyoming v. Colorado | Water: supply from Laramie River | Supreme Court of the United States | 1922 |
Yorta Yorta v Victoria | Land and water: rights of natives | Federal Court of Australia | 1998 |
Lawsuit(s) | Environmental asset(s) and subject(s) of lawsuit(s) | Court(s) of decision(s) | Year(s) of decision(s) |
---|---|---|---|
Adirondack League Club v. Sierra Club | General environment: trespassing during recreation | New York Court of Appeals | 1998 |
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran) | Oil fields: licence to extract oil | International Court of Justice of the United Nations, based in The Hague, Netherlands | 1952 |
Arizona v. California | Water: supply from Colorado River | Supreme Court of the United States | 1931, 1934, 1936, 1963, 1964, 1968, 1979, 1983, 1984, 2000 and 2006 |
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon | Wildlife: interpretation of law protecting fish and wildlife | Supreme Court of the United States | 1995 |
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana | Wildlife: elk hunting | Supreme Court of the United States | 1978 |
Bamford v Turnley | Aesthetics: smoke from brick kiln | 1860 | |
BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority | Electromagnetic fields: terms regarding clearing of land | Supreme Court of Canada | 1993 |
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. | Seeds: patent exhaustion | Supreme Court of the United States | 2013 |
Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. | Oil fields (offshore): injuries and human rights violations | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | 2008 |
Burford v. Sun Oil Co. | Oil fields: complex geology and multiple users | Supreme Court of the United States | 1943 |
C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York | Recycling: interstate exportation restriction | Supreme Court of the United States | 1994 |
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. | Land: regulating the coal mining industry | Supreme Court of the United States | 1936 |
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett | Workplace: asbestos exposure | Supreme Court of the United States | 1986 |
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States EPA | General environment: hazardous waste (disposal and reporting) | 1992 | |
Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute | Water: sea border between Chile and Peru | International Court of Justice of the United Nations, based in The Hague, Netherlands | unresolved |
Deepwater Horizon litigation | Water: Gulf of Mexico | ||
Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association | Water: federal legislation | Supreme Court of the United States | 2001 |
Diamond v. Chakrabarty | Genetics and water: patent for GMO for cleaning oil spills | Supreme Court of the United States | 1980 |
Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills | Climate: providing documentary An Inconvenient Truth (about climate change) to English state schools | High Court of Justice of England and Wales | 2007 |
English v. General Electric | Workplace: work table contaminated with uranium | Supreme Court of the United States | 1990 |
Farley v Skinner | Soundscape: aircraft noise | House of Lords of the United Kingdom | 2001 |
Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. | Leguminous plants: patent for product for promoting nitrogen fixation | Supreme Court of the United States | 1948 |
Georgia v. South Carolina (1990) | Water: interstate boundary | Supreme Court of the United States | 1990 |
Hunt v. T&N plc | Workplace: asbestos exposure | Supreme Court of Canada | 1993 |
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis | Land: coal mining causing damage to buildings, etc. | Supreme Court of the United States | 1987 |
McLibel case | Water and rainforests: waste and destruction, respectively | European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France | 2005 |
Michigan v. EPA | General environment: pollution from power plants | Supreme Court of the United States | 2015 |
Minister of Public Works v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association | Conservation: housing for flood victims | Constitutional Court of South Africa | 2001 |
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians | Wildlife: hunting, fishing, and gathering rights | Supreme Court of the United States | 1999 |
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission | General environment: disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors | Supreme Court of the United States | 1983 |
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. | Land: restoration after coal mining | Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 1962 |
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon | Land: coal mining under a habitation | Supreme Court of the United States | 1922 |
People of the State of California v. Federal Housing Finance Agency | General environment: energy-related property improvements | United States District Court for the Northern District of California | |
R. v. Marshall | Fisheries: right of Aboriginals to catch and sell eels | Supreme Court of Canada | 1999 |
RJW & SJW v The Guardian newspaper & Person or Persons Unknown | Environment of Ivory Coast: publishing toxic waste dumping | 2009 | |
Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles | Land: expropriation for highway | Supreme Court of the United States | 1923 |
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | Wetlands: fill material for building a house | Supreme Court of the United States | 2012 |
Solar Century Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change | General environment: support for solar power | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | 2016 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby | General environment: false insurance claims after Hurricane Katrina | Supreme Court of the United States | 2016 |
Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | Air: federal regulation of state emission limitations | Supreme Court of the United States | 1975 |
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council | Land: water pipe leaking and washing away land | 2003 | |
Tulee v. Washington | Fisheries: rights of Native Americans | Supreme Court of the United States | 1942 |
United States v. Causby | Biophony and scotobiology: aircraft flying low | Supreme Court of the United States | 1946 |
United States v. Louisiana (1965) | Natural resources: entitlement to Gulf of Mexico seabed | Supreme Court of the United States | 1965 |
United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians | Land: mineral and timber rights | Supreme Court of the United States | 1938 |
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures | General environment: transport of raw materials and of recyclable materials | Supreme Court of the United States | 1973 |
United States v. The Progressive | General environment: publishing the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb | 1979 | |
Vaughan v Menlove | General environment: spontaneous ignition of hay, causing fire to spread to adjacent land | 1837 | |
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment | Environmental protection: door-to-door solicitation | Supreme Court of the United States | 1980 |
Wik Peoples v Queensland | Land: removal of land from Aboriginal reserve for bauxite mining | High Court of Australia | 1996 |
Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. | Water: sailboat breaking through a dam | Supreme Court of the United States | 1829 |
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell Co. | Oil fields: human rights abuses | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | 2009 |
Yarmirr v Northern Territory | Water: native title to seas, sea-bed and sub-soil | Federal Court of Australia | 2001 |
Transocean Ltd. is an American drilling company. It is the world's largest offshore drilling contractor based on revenue and is based in Vernier, Switzerland. The company has offices in 20 countries, including Canada, the United States, Norway, United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation was a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. It was organized in Delaware and headquartered in two skyscrapers in The Woodlands, Texas: the Allison Tower and the Hackett Tower, both named after former CEOs of the company. In 2019, the company was acquired by Occidental Petroleum.
Resolute Forest Products, formerly known as AbitibiBowater Inc., is a Canada-based pulp and paper company. Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, the company was formed in 2007 by the merger of Bowater and Abitibi-Consolidated. At that time, the merged company was the third largest pulp and paper company in North America, and the eighth largest in the world.
Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore drilling rig owned by Transocean and operated by BP. On 20 April 2010, while drilling at the Macondo Prospect, a blowout caused an explosion on the rig that killed 11 crewmen and ignited a fireball visible from 40 miles (64 km) away. The fire was inextinguishable and, two days later, on 22 April, the Horizon sank, leaving the well gushing at the seabed and creating the largest marine oil spill in history.
Ecojustice Canada, is a Canadian non-profit environmental law organization that provides funding to lawyers to use litigation to defend and protect the environment. Ecojustice is Canada's largest environmental law charity.
Martin Leach-Cross Feldman was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, was an environmental lawsuit filed by citizens of Hardeman County, Tennessee, led by Steven Sterling, who sued Velsicol Chemical Corporation for contaminating their water supply through improper disposal of toxic chemicals.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an environmental disaster which began on 20 April 2010, off the coast of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect, considered the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and estimated to be 8 to 31 percent larger in volume than the previous largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico. Caused in the aftermath of a blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, the United States federal government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 MMbbl. After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010. Reports in early 2012 indicated that the well site was still leaking. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is regarded as one of the largest environmental disasters in world history.
On April 20, 2010, an explosion and fire occurred on the Deepwater Horizon semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit, which was owned and operated by Transocean and drilling for BP in the Macondo Prospect oil field about 40 miles (64 km) southeast off the Louisiana coast. The explosion and subsequent fire resulted in the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and the deaths of 11 workers; 17 others were injured. The same blowout that caused the explosion also caused an oil well fire and a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the world, and the largest environmental disaster in United States history.
Discoverer Enterprise is a fifth generation deepwater double hulled dynamically positioned drillship owned and operated by Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., capable of operating in moderate environments and water depths up to 3,049 m (10,000 ft) using an 18.75 in (47.6 cm), 15,000 psi blowout preventer (BOP), and a 21 in (53 cm) outside diameter (OD) marine riser. From 1998 to 2005 the vessel was Panama-flagged and currently flies the flag of convenience of the Marshall Islands.
The civil and criminal proceedings stemming from the explosion of Deepwater Horizon and the resulting massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began shortly after the April 20, 2010 incident and have continued since then. They have included an extensive claims settlement process for a guilty plea to criminal charges by BP, and an ongoing Clean Water Act lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and other parties.
Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar is an ongoing case in United States federal court. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent oil spill, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued a six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in deep water. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the moratorium.
Following is a Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for May 2010.
Range Resources Corporation is a natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. It operates in the Marcellus Formation, where it is one of the largest land owners
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 893 F. Supp. 2d 1058, was a United States District Court for the District of Nevada case in which the Court held that Zappos.com's customers were not held to the browsewrap terms of use because of their obscure nature. The courts also held that the agreement was unenforceable because Zappos had reserved the right to change it at any time without informing the customers. This court decision set a precedent for businesses that use browsewrap agreements and/or include a clause in their agreements that allow them to change the agreements at any time. The decision encouraged conversation on how a business should most fairly display its terms of use and how to avoid unfairness and ambiguity when writing them.
High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.
Baron & Budd, P.C. is an American plaintiffs' law firm headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Opponents of mass tort litigation have criticized the firm for the zealousness with which it represents its clients, and for the political activities of some of its attorneys.
Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al, No. C 07-2151 CW, was a civil litigation in a federal court in San Francisco, California. The plaintiffs were Chinese citizens and democratic activists in China arrested, incarcerated, and tortured allegedly after defendants Yahoo provided Chinese officials with access to their personal emails, user IDs, and other identifying information. Yahoo settled with the plaintiffs out of court.