Posted
by

Yesterday, in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kansas v. Nebraska, several members of the Court strongly disagreed with the determinations of Justice Kagan, including that “disgorgement” was proper. The Chief Justice, and Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito argued that the Court’s equitable power was not sufficient to alter the accounting principles the states had agreed to in earlier settlements. For his part, Justice Scalia advised his colleagues not to treat the Restatements of the law as an authoritative description of the law: “Over time, the Restatements’ authors have abandoned the mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to set forth their aspirations for what the law ought to be”. For his part, Justice Thomas took the view that ordinary contract principles should have been applied to this dispute, which the majority ignored, and observed that this dispute involves the “inherent authority of sovereign states to regulate the use of water” and that “authority over water is a core attribute of state sovereignty”. These views may play a role in all manner of cases in the future.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The California Contractors State License Board has made available a study guide for the trade examination for the various contractor license and specialty license classifications and one for the law and business examination; a trade examination is not required for the C-61 limited specialty classification. It has also made available a study guide for the asbestos certification and hazardous substances removal certification. Each study guide provides: (1) a breakdown of examination topics, (2) several sample examination questions, (3) resource information to help the license applicant study for the examination, (4) test site policies, and (5) a test strategy.

Additional Sources: California Contractors License Law & Reference Book (2014 Ed.); CSLB, Apply for a Contractors License – Exam Required; CSLB, Step 2: Applying for a Waiver of the Examination; CSLB, Step 7: Studying for the Examination

Posted
by

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Jim Glasgow and Elina Teplinsky posted their client advisory DOE Issues the Part 810 Final Rule: Summary and Compliance Steps for Industry. The Advisory discusses the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) final rule amending its regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 810 on “Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities” (“Part 810”). The rule takes effect on March 25, 2015. The rulemaking to amend Part 810, which the DOE has been undertaking since it published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) seeking to amend Part 810 on September 7, 2011, constitutes the most substantial change to these foreign nuclear assistance regulations since 1986 and, arguably, in the history of Part 810.

Posted
by

The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in City of Houston v. BCCA Appeal Group, Inc., on March 25, 2015 regarding whether the application of a City of Houston registration ordinance which purports to regulate air pollution within the City of Houston’s borders is preempted by the Texas Clean Air Act of 1967 (TCAA). The First District Court of Appeals held that the defendants “failed to show that the Legislature intended to preempt the Ordinance with ‘unmistakable clarity,’ and thus, failed to meet its extraordinary burden to establish that the ordinance is invalid, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 11089 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013). The City of Houston is clearly concerned that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s enforcement of the TCAA has not been very vigorous. We should expect to see a decision in this important case a few months .

Posted
by

On February 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed a major lawsuit that was filed by the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority–representing a number of local South Louisiana levee boards–against 88 oil and gas companies operating in South Louisiana for many years. The case is Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, et al., v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

S.1 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) was introduced on January 6, 2015. Recently, it was passed by both the House (February 11, 2015) and Senate (January 29, 2015). The President has indicated he will veto the bill. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see what’s in the bill.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

As I previously reported, on January 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota granted summary judgment to EPA and two environmental groups defending EPA’s decision to release personal data submitted by a group of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)-farm facilities who were also applicants for Minnesota wastewater discharges. The case is American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council v. EPA. However, on February 6, 2015, the District Court released an Amended Protective Order pursuant to an agreement reached by the plaintiffs and defendants to limit the disclosure of the confidential information that is at issue in this case.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

A unanimous panel of the Illinois Appellate Court recently held that three insurers have a duty to defend any case in which the bare underlying allegations – if proved – would render their insured liable, regardless of extrinsic facts. This sweeping ruling confirms that the duty to defend is a form of “litigation insurance,” protecting the insured against the costs of being wrongly sued, however groundless the claims against it may be. The case is Illinois Tool Works Inc. and ITW Finishing LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, et al.
Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Julia Judish, Rebecca Carr Rizzo and Keith Hudolin published their client alert titled The Legal Landscape Rapidly Changes for D.C. Employers. The Alert discusses how District of Columbia employers now face and are soon to face a number of new laws affecting a wide range of issues, including wage payments, recording of hours worked, pregnancy accommodations, concealed weapons in the workplace, and the use of criminal background checks and drug testing during the hiring process. While most of the changes impose new requirements on employers, emergency legislation passed by the D.C. Council on February 3rd also contained a win for employers by changing existing D.C. law that had previously required that employers keep records of hours worked by both exempt and non-exempt employees. Employers must be aware of these new requirements, some of which require employers to change their current practices, and should carefully review their employee handbooks and other policies to ensure timely compliance.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Julia Judish, Rebecca Carr Rizzo, or Keith Hudolin, the authors of this blog.

Posted
by

Friday, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the case of Environmental Processing Systems, L.C. v. FPL Farming Ltd., reversing the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas’s finding that EPS had the burden of establishing an affirmative defense that it had the landowner’s consent, and that Texas recognizes a common law trespass cause of action for deep subsurface water migration. The environmental and property rights issues affected by deep subsurface wastewater disposal are important to the oil and gas industry as well local and state government permitting agencies and environmental groups.
Continue Reading ›