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
08-0074, 2010 WL 2541096 (Tex. June 25, 2010). The Supreme Court of Texas agreed, and remanded the case to the court of appeals for remittitur consistent with its opinion. Reynolds, No. By Natalie Barletta and Andrew Wooley In Bennett v. Campbell , 538 U.S.
10] While the rule does not specify whether the new limits apply retroactively to oil spills that occur before the effective date, case law indicates that the change will be prospective only. [11] First, the Coast Guard announced [1] increases to the liability limits in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”). [2]
Moreno On November 8, 2010, the U.S. The original Subpart W rule for petroleum and natural gas facilities was proposed in March 2010. In that case, the emissions from the individual wells would be aggregated and treated as one “facility” for reporting purposes. By Carlos J.
Background In 2010, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Department of Interior renamed the Minerals Management Service (MMS) the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 3304, issued June 29, 2010. The head of the IRU reports to the BSEE Director. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.),
The district court dismissed their case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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). 20, 2010 , 452 F. 2] Here, this was not the case. See Barker v.
In 2010, Congress empowered OSHA to administer claims arising under the SPA. In a stark reminder of the sanctity of Coast Guard investigations, and the consequences of impeding such investigations, the U.S. On October 20, 2017, Bouchard Transportation’s ATB BUSTER BOUCHARD/B. Two crewmembers perished as a result of the casualty.
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
Dicharry and Robert E. Holden Following the Deepwater Horizon incident in May 2010, the DOI imposed a six-month moratorium on the issuance of new drilling permits in deep water and directed then-operating lessees to stop operations at the soonest time practicable. Hornbeck Offshore Servs., Salazar , __F.3d__, 3d__, 2012 U.S.
The district court dismissed their case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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). 20, 2010 , 452 F. 2] Here, this was not the case. See Barker v.
9] Unsatisfied with the response, Gloria’s Ranch sent a letter on January 28, 2010 demanding a recordable act evidencing the expiration of the lease, to which the defendants refused. 1] The dispute in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. Tauren Exploration, Inc. 2] The lease was granted by Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. Tauren Exploration, Inc.
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