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
Justiss”) entered into a turnkey drilling contract to drill a deep oil well using intermediate casing purchased from Oil Country Tubular Co. The casing pipe was API certified to a particular pressure and one of the Defendants’ owners represented to Justiss that the pipe was fit for its intended use. Justiss Oil Company, Inc.
This case arises from a fatal accident on an icy, unlit stretch of highway near Amarillo, Texas. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for a new trial. A wrongful death case is no different in this regard. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.001 (12). Saenz , 925 S.W.2d
The first memo announced the reversal of OSHA’s April 10, 2020 policy that limited the requirement to track on-the-job cases of COVID-19 to health-care facilities, emergency response providers, and corrections facilities. The agency cautioned that recording a COVID-19 case does not necessarily mean the employer violated an OSHA standard.
Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and submitted, in part, excerpts from the depositions of Mr. Steib’s co-workers and six individuals deposed in unrelated asbestos cases that Plaintiffs argued established Mr. Steib’s exposure. This article addresses Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments. Marathon later joined Parsons’s motion.
In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the employment-at-will doctrine, and its decision will likely be cited in many other types of employment law cases, including those asserting wrongful termination claims. It will also be useful to employers in a variety of other cases where their personnel decisions are challenged.
Flint 1 applied to the case at hand, barring claimants from recovering economic damages for deferred oil production. This case required a complex analysis of Robins Dry Dock due to separate entities, under claimants’ parent company, owning the pipeline, and leasing the wells and platforms. On October 30, 2023, the U.S.
Additionally, a motion to recuse was filed to remove Justice Crain from the case. Justice Crain had been previously removed from a case involving the Talbot, Carmouche, and Marcello law firm; however, in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s request, allowing Justice Crain to consider the writ application.
In May 2018, oil and gas industry defendants removed a docket of 42 cases alleging violations of Louisiana’s coastal zone management laws to federal court in the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana (“CZM cases”). Defendants removed Auster (and 11 other Western District CZM cases) based on federal officer jurisdiction (28 U.S.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. In City of Oakland et al. BP PLC et al. 1442(a)(1).
On the case’s second trip to the Fifth Circuit, the court focused upon the theories of recovery articulated by the Plaintiffs. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, finding no basis in the Civil Code articles on contracts for a disgorgement of profits. Read the opinion here.
On the case’s second trip to the Fifth Circuit, the court focused upon the theories of recovery articulated by the Plaintiffs. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, finding no basis in the Civil Code articles on contracts for a disgorgement of profits. Read the opinion here.
Part I of this blog covers some basics about state and federal courts, explaining why the jurisdictional question of where a case will be decided is often contested. Federal Court “Removal” is the name for the process when a party transfers a case originally filed in a state court to a federal court. Only the court is different.
This article is sponsored by The Edge (powered by Ascend Now ). We expect teachers, the first responders to educational issues, to ensure our young learners and future leaders know core academic subjects like reading, math, science, and history. The Edge is more than just SEL or career and technical education.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and submitted, in part, excerpts from the depositions of Mr. Steib’s co-workers and six individuals deposed in unrelated asbestos cases that Plaintiffs argued established Mr. Steib’s exposure. This article addresses Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments. Marathon later joined Parsons’s motion.
Now the case is before the Texas Supreme Court, with a recently submitted amicus brief containing the argument that could turn the tides back in the lessees’ favor. The lessors won in the trial court; the court of appeals affirmed. Factual Background and Issue. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
The LDNR subsequently applied for supervisory writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court, arguing that mandamus violates the sole authority of the legislature to appropriate funds to pay for judgments against the State under Louisiana Constitution article XII §10(C) and La. The Court then pointed to Louisiana Constitution article XII §10(C) and La.
In contrast to the majority, Chief Justice Weimer and Justice Crain opined that “serious” emotional distress means distress that is “severe, debilitating, and foreseeable,” analogizing the standard to that of NIED bystander damages under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.6. [3] Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
That case is one of forty-two Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) cases that were removed to Federal court in May 2018. The cases were removed to Federal court by Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Riverwood Production Co., 1442 (the federal officer removal statute) and 28 U.S.C.
Additionally, a motion to recuse was filed to remove Justice Crain from the case. Justice Crain had been previously removed from a case involving the Talbot, Carmouche, and Marcello law firm; however, in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s request, allowing Justice Crain to consider the writ application.
Although the bill expressly provides that “[a] renewable energy lease is not a mineral lease,” the proposed legislation contains a number of provisions that are either identical or substantially similar to the Louisiana Mineral Code articles governing mineral leases. An identical provision exists in the Mineral Code.
Under this doctrine, “a court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction and dismiss a case that is otherwise properly before it so that the case can be adjudicated in another forum.” This is the analysis the Court applied in the instant case of Noble House LLC v. The case is Noble House, L.L.C. May 1, 2023).
a case concerning Texas partnership law. Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Last week the Texas Supreme Court granted review in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
1] In doing so, the Third Circuit affirmed the constitutional and statutory authority of the Tax Commission to correct assessment that, as in this case, did not properly reflect the fair market value of the pipeline system. Contact Cheryl Kornick or Robert Angelico for more information.
One of the Facility Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, arguing that complete diversity existed between all properly joined defendants and the Plaintiffs. 1] The Court found that remand was necessary in the case at issue because of the uncertainty of whether discretionary immunity under La.
Privacy Policy : By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. United States Department of the Interior , 1:21-cv-11091-IT; and Responsible Offshore Development Alliance v.
Instead, BSEE decided to retain the current framework, under which BSEE’s position is that it may issue decommissioning orders to any or all jointly and severally liable parties in the chain of title on a case-by-case basis. BSEE’s final rule can be found at 88 Fed. 23569 (April 18, 2023).
Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
ExxonMobil removed the case to federal court arguing that the lawsuit involves “complex federal statutory, regulatory, and constitutional issues and frameworks,” which should supplant Massachusetts’ interpretation of climate issues. The majority of these cases have been brought under state nuisance laws. United States , No.
With Louisiana’s case dismissed, the TED requirements for shrimp skimmer trawl vessels 40 feet and greater in length are likely to remain in place. Privacy Policy : By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry.
QEP Energy Company , the Western District of Louisiana rejected, for the second time in this case, Plaintiffs’ claims seeking a disgorgement of QEP’s profits. As to Plaintiffs’ claim under the Civil Code articles on accession, the District Court found those articles could not lead to an award of disgorgement.
In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. After the LL&E I decision, the case went to trial in 2015. The error was LL&E I’s holding that in cases without an express contractual restoration provision, “excess remediation damages were allowed under Act 312.” Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 2020-00685 (La.
As was the case in 2012, this proposed amendment would also extend this direct payment requirement to any overriding royalty interests burdening the nonparticipating owner’s lease. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
This morning I attended oral argument at the United States Supreme Court in the maritime case of Dutra Group v. 1] The question in the case is whether a Jones Act seaman may recover punitive damages on an unseaworthiness claim. Batterton. [1] Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
. § 1447(d), a provision that specifically authorizes interlocutory appeal of an order remanding a case removed pursuant to the federal officer removal statute. The energy companies removed Baltimore’s case to federal court asserting several bases for federal court jurisdiction, one of which was federal officer jurisdiction.
. § 1447(d), a provision that specifically authorizes interlocutory appeal of an order remanding a case removed pursuant to the federal officer removal statute. The energy companies removed Baltimore’s case to federal court asserting several bases for federal court jurisdiction, one of which was federal officer jurisdiction.
Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Although not yet final, this reversal is long-awaited victory for unit operators in Louisiana.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Defendants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the case titled Markle Interests, L.L.C., Tammany Parish as a critical-habitat for the Dusky Gopher Frog under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) was proper. ( Click here to view the article on the Fifth Circuit’s June 30 th Opinion).
Huntington Ingalls, Inc. , [1] a case previously featured on the Blog , overruling “extraordinarily confused” precedent and establishing a new removal test under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. This statute was amended in 2011 to allow removal of cases “for or relating to any act under color of [federal] office.”
In support of that notion, the Court cited the 1957 Texas Supreme Court case Garrett v. Another possible example, though not noted by the Court, can be seen in a case currently pending before the Eastland Court of Appeals: PetroLegacy Energy II, LLC v. Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (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., This opinion reinforces several key concepts in legacy cases. 5/25/21), 2021 WL 2102932, —So.
Riverwood to state court, unpersuaded that he “may or must exercise simultaneous jurisdiction by acting on a matter presented to the Fifth Circuit for decision in a case where appellate proceedings are not final but, instead, remain active.” The case is The Parish of Plaquemines v. Riverwood Production Co. , 18-5217 (E.D.
The final rule additionally does not clarify the phrase “relatively permanent” in the rule, signaling that such decisions will likely be made on a case-by-case basis by the local Army Corps district. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
climate change litigation, as these cases continue to grow in number. Moreover, in addition to climate change litigation, the Supreme Court’s review could have a significant impact on Louisiana’s coastal erosion litigation, where energy companies have asserted similar arguments when removing those 42 cases.
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