|
|
|
Court reaffirms BP is liable in Gulf oil spill
Law Firm Press Release |
2014/12/11 14:53
|
A federal appeals court panel has reaffirmed its ruling that BP is liable for federal Clean Water Act damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the latest loss for the oil giant as it fights court decisions that could ultimately bring $18 billion in penalties.
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that there were errors in its June 4 ruling on BP's Clean Water Act liability. The ruling released Wednesday night is not the final say from the court. BP and its minority partner in the Macondo well, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., have a request pending for the full 15-member court to reconsider the issue.
The June order and Wednesday's follow-up were issued by Judges Fortunato Benavides, Carolyn Dineen King and James Dennis. They upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling holding the well owners are liable.
BP and Anadarko had argued they were not liable because equipment failure on the leased rig Deepwater Horizon caused the April 2010 disaster. An explosion on the rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf in what became the nation's worst offshore oil disaster.
Barbier has also ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" in the disaster. BP has asked Barbier to reconsider that finding, which, if it stands, would be a factor in whether the water act penalties for the company reach an estimated $18 billion.
Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of spilled oil. The higher limit applies if the company is found grossly negligent — as BP was in Barbier's ruling. But penalties can be assessed at lower amounts.
Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf. BP has urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties.
Barbier has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much BP owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects blood transfusion case
Law Firm Press Release |
2014/12/11 14:48
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.
The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of Gwendolyn Rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.
Rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ. She refused a blood transfusion, in keeping with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Rozier's estate accused the doctors of failing to timely recognize internal bleeding, among other allegations, which would have eliminated the need for a transfusion.
The Michigan appeals court said the transfusion was a necessary medical procedure under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to weigh challenge in suit on Israel attacks
Law Firm Press Release |
2014/12/11 14:38
|
A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will consider the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization's pretrial challenge of a $1 billion lawsuit filed by U.S. terrorism victims.
The PA and PLO don't want the lawsuit to go to trial, saying a U.S. court should not have jurisdiction over the case and that the litigation could undermine their ability to govern and worsen tensions in the region.
In a one-paragraph order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ordered lawyers who brought the lawsuit to file a response next week. The lawyers did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday.
A Jan. 12 trial is set over litigation brought by victims of seven shootings and bombings near Jerusalem between January 2001 and February 2004. The attacks killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more, including scores of U.S. citizens.
Lawyers for the PA and PLO told the 2nd Circuit earlier this month that a lower-court judge was wrong to establish jurisdiction over the lawsuit because of a 12-person office the PLO has maintained in the United States.
The lawyers said the PA and PLO's home was in the West Bank and that U.S. activities are a tiny portion of their worldwide activities.
The lawyers said the $1 billion sought by more than 40 plaintiffs could be automatically tripled by law to $3 billion if the PLO lost at a trial that is projected to last three months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court voids overall contribution limits
Law Firm Press Release |
2014/04/03 15:55
|
The Supreme Court struck down limits today in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.
The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.
But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.
The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
