Energy Central
DECEMBER 4, 2022
Non-subscribers get at least a few free articles per month, though you may have to give your e-mail address.) The article provides quite a few impressive references. Well, this is biting off a lot to chew. But it does address many of the issues that I see discussed on EnergyCentral.com.
The Energy Law
JULY 1, 2021
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 . LL&E II , at *2. 3d 1038 (“ LL&E I ”) marked a key development.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Energy Central
MARCH 8, 2022
This well-written article by the founders of Solmicrogrid takes a deep dive into the "E" into the popular topic of ESG.
The Energy Law
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
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. In a recent blog post, we discussed a proposed ordinance before the Livingston Parish Council to ban injection and disposal wells in Livingston Parish.
The Energy Law
JANUARY 28, 2022
As to Plaintiffs’ claim under the Civil Code articles on accession, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ claims on two grounds: the gas produced from the wells was not a fruit but rather a product, and the gas which ran through the off-servitude portion of the pipelines was not taken from the Plaintiffs’ land, but that of their neighbor.
The Energy Law
JANUARY 28, 2022
As to Plaintiffs’ claim under the Civil Code articles on accession, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ claims on two grounds: the gas produced from the wells was not a fruit but rather a product, and the gas which ran through the off-servitude portion of the pipelines was not taken from the Plaintiffs’ land, but that of their neighbor.
The Energy Law
JULY 27, 2023
The Louisiana Third Circuit recently affirmed a trial court discovery ruling that allowed the defendant to design its own e-discovery protocol without input from plaintiffs. 3d–, whereby the court affirmed the trial court’s discretion to deny the plaintiffs’ demand for control over the defendant’s e-discovery protocols. The
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content