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
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 vessel was therefore in compliance with Rule 5, which requires “a proper look-out by sight and hearing,” at the time of the incident; and, in any event, “[the decedent] did not fall overboard because of a violation of Rule 5.” Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Marathon later joined Parsons’s motion.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. The lessors won in the trial court; the court of appeals affirmed. Factual Background and Issue.
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.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Marathon later joined Parsons’s motion.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Riverwood Production Co.,
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.
Similarly, BSEE withdrew its proposal to require proceeding up the chain of title in “reverse chronological order” against predecessor lessees, grant holders, and owners of operating rights, in the event subsequent assignees fail to perform. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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).
That drilling rig was also scheduled to drill two other wells before drilling the well at issue, but MRC could have forgone drilling the two other wells to drill the new well, in which case it would have met the May 21, 2017 deadline. The Court narrowed its discussion to whether MRC’s operations were “delayed by” an event of force majeure.
a case concerning Texas partnership law. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Last week the Texas Supreme Court granted review in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. , Energy Transfer Partners has garnered significant amicus support on both sides of the “v.”
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
Communications include firm news, insights, and events. United States Department of the Interior , 1:21-cv-11091-IT; and Responsible Offshore Development Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior , 1:21-cv-11172-IT). To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
This case was handled by Paul Adkins of Liskow’s Baton Rouge office. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. As to Plaintiffs’ trespass claims, the court found the same absence of any evidence of additional profits earned by QEP precluded any disgorgement remedy under trespass. Read the opinion here.
This case was handled by Paul Adkins of Liskow’s Baton Rouge office. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. As to Plaintiffs’ trespass claims, the court found the same absence of any evidence of additional profits earned by QEP precluded any disgorgement remedy under trespass. Read the opinion here.
Communications include firm news, insights, and events. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
Plaintiffs argued for the application of the Jazz Casino and Lowther cases, in which the Court held that there was no discretion required to appropriate funds for judgments on overpaid taxes and firefighters’ back wages, respectively. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
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.
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.
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.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Batterton. [1]
. § 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.
These events have dramatically impacted the world economy, and wreaked havoc on the day-to-day functions of individuals and businesses in the United States and elsewhere. Does this pandemic and resultant disruption constitute a force majeure event under Louisiana and Texas law? In all cases, the inquiry is likely to be fact-specific.
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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Dils Co. ,
The remedies provided for failure to pay or provide reasonable grounds for nonpayment largely mimic the damages provisions of the Mineral Code, with the notable exception that the bill does not include the Mineral Code’s express aversion to dissolution of the lease in a case involving a failure to pay royalties.
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.
The defendant manufacturers removed the cases from Pennsylvania state court to federal court and invoked the “bare metal defense” under general maritime law, arguing that they should not be liable for harms caused by later-added third-party parts. Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case. VI) , 873 F.3d 3d 232 (3d Cir.
The Litel case began as a legacy lawsuit, in which Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc. Thereafter, the LDNR intervened in the Litel case, seeking recovery of emergency costs from Pioneer and Gary. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. The OSRL defines “responsible party” as “the operator of record. Lyon Well #1.
Communications include firm news, insights, and events. This decision—and particularly the concurrences of Chief Justice Weimer and Justice Crain—also underscores the need for possible legislation to clarify that the same standard for recovery of bystander damages under Civil Code article 2315.6 1] [link]. [2]
Communications include firm news, insights, and events. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
Communications include firm news, insights, and events. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
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. This case was handled by Paul Adkins of Liskow’s Baton Rouge office. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. Read the opinion here.
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content