This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The “ LL&E II ” decision finds that Act 312 charges the court, not the jury, to determine the funding needed to remediate property to government standards. 3d — (“ LL&E II ”). [1]. Background of Legacy Litigation and LL&E I . In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. LL&E II , at *2.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:103.1 have been heavily litigated in recent years, but there are only a handful of reported decisions interpreting these statutes. Many of these decisions involve whether a party complied with the strict notice requirements contained in the statutes. Kelly Land Company, L.L.C. Aethon Energy Operating, L.L.C. ,
In two companion cases, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided whether a federal district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over climate change suits brought against energy companies by cities and counties in California. . 1442(a)(1). In City of Oakland et al. BP PLC et al. 1442(a)(1).
The “ LL&E II ” decision finds that Act 312 charges the court, not the jury, to determine the funding needed to remediate property to government standards. 3d — (“ LL&E II ”). [1]. Background of Legacy Litigation and LL&E I . In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. LL&E II , at *2.
This particular species of lease washouts is based on two recent cases from the El Paso Court of Appeals – Cimarex Energy Co. Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, 676 S.W.3d Anadarko E& P Onshore, LLC, no. Anadarko failed to account to Cimarex for its 1/6th share of production, and Cimarex brought suit in February 2013.
In this case, Tongli Shipping Pte. On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit analyzed what constitutes a prima facie maritime claim sufficient to support attachment of property under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bunge appealed.
The district court dismissed their case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed their case under Rule 12(b)(6). 2] Here, this was not the case. In In re Deepwater Horizon , No. 20-30300, 2021 WL 96168, a three-judge panel of the U.S. On January 11, 2021, the Fifth Circuit panel affirmed.
This recent case [ MIECO, L.L.C. With these common strings, this case could have implications (small or large) for other similar pending disputes across the state. In the MEICO court’s view, that case “counsels strongly” against reading the word “prevent” to mean “make impossible.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.
Secretary Salazar originally intended the IRU’s functions to continue within the three new bureaus; however, as of fiscal year 2013, the IRU was operating only within BSEE (PDF). The head of the IRU reports to the BSEE Director. The IRU staff includes a federal criminal prosecutor and experienced law enforcement agents. In particular, Rep.
The district court dismissed their case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed their case under Rule 12(b)(6). 2] Here, this was not the case. In In re Deepwater Horizon , No. 20-30300, 2021 WL 96168, a three-judge panel of the U.S. On January 11, 2021, the Fifth Circuit panel affirmed.
If used correctly, TAR can result in drastic savings for clients in document-intensive cases and provide more accurate results. Competence includes at least a basic understanding of TAR in order to evaluate the appropriate document review method for each case and implement a protocol for electronically stored information.
1] Prior to the Pennsylvania ruling, there were two seminal cases that have addressed the issue and reached conflicting results. The court found that an actionable trespass claim requires an injury and that the only claimed injury in this case—drainage of gas from beneath the plaintiff’s property—was barred by the rule of capture. [3]
In January 2016, Judge Haik retired from the bench and the case was transferred to Judge Drell. District Court Judge Dee Drell (Western District, LA) recently denied a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment against CITGO Petroleum Corp.– allowing an $81 million judgment against the oil company to stand. Charles refinery.
This case boasts a lengthy and varied procedural history, but the opinion at issue came after a jury found Unocal responsible for “environmental damage” as defined under Act 312 and awarded $3.5 Act 312 provides that any limited admission is admissible in evidence at trial and Unocal’s limited admission was presented to the jury in this case.
EP Energy E&P Co., While not particularly groundbreaking, Middleton does provide further guidance to mineral lessees and litigators with respect to the relevant factors and time period considered in a paying quantities case. 50,300-CA (La. for the 41-month period. over the 41 months, an average of $70.87 Lea Exploration Co.,
If used correctly, TAR can result in drastic savings for clients in document-intensive cases and provide more accurate results. Competence includes at least a basic understanding of TAR in order to evaluate the appropriate document review method for each case and implement a protocol for electronically stored information.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) Eastland 2013, pet. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 3d 137, 149 (Tex.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) Eastland 2013, pet. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 3d 137, 149 (Tex.
3d—, the Louisiana First Circuit recently reaffirmed well-settled principles regarding prescription and the subsequent purchaser doctrine in Louisiana legacy cases. In this case, Lexington Land sued Chevron U.S.A., 5/25/21), 2021 WL 2102932, —So. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2009-2368 (La. 10/19/10), 48 So.
3d—, the Louisiana First Circuit recently reaffirmed well-settled principles regarding prescription and the subsequent purchaser doctrine in Louisiana legacy cases. In this case, Lexington Land sued Chevron U.S.A., 5/25/21), 2021 WL 2102932, —So. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2009-2368 (La. 10/19/10), 48 So.
3d—, the Louisiana First Circuit recently reaffirmed well-settled principles regarding prescription and the subsequent purchaser doctrine in Louisiana legacy cases. In this case, Lexington Land sued Chevron U.S.A., 5/25/21), 2021 WL 2102932, —So. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2009-2368 (La. 10/19/10), 48 So.
In a case sure to be used as a sword by many defendants in the prevalent NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) litigation in Louisiana and elsewhere, Patricia Lennie, et al. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit distinguished a prior case, Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Exxon Mobil Corp., 10-743 (La. 5/31/12), 102 So.3d
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content