(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a mootness ruling in a dispute between two neighbors over the proposed demolition of a Laguna Beach house and its replacement with a new three-story residence. The case involved the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Commission rules.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a town could not enforce a hazardous substances ordinance against a railroad company that was building a road salt transloading facility. The ordinance was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. Affirmed a permanent injunction against the town.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(United States DC Circuit) - Granted in part. In a petition to review an order loosening regulations to allow microcell transmission towers supporting cell phone reception to be built on or near Native American cultural sites, the FCC's determination that it wasn't in the public interest to review small cell deployment was arbitrary and capricious.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court judgment dismissing a copyright infringement suit brought by a producer of educational materials against FedEx for their duplication of the products on behalf of school districts, whose use was licensed as noncommercial, because the distinction between their use and FedEx's facilitation of their use should have been explicitly laid out in the license they gave the schools.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tech company's copyright infringement claims against a competitor. Held that claim preclusion did not bar the company from asserting copyright infringement claims that had accrued after its earlier patent infringement suit against the competitor.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied the federal government's petition for mandamus to stop a lawsuit alleging that the government is ignoring the dangers of climate change. This lawsuit was brought by a number of children and young adults who accuse federal officials of violating their due process rights by failing to take action to address climate change. Having previously denied the government's first mandamus petition, the panel concluded that no new circumstances justify this second mandamus petition and the case is currently set for trial.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge to the construction of a natural gas pipeline across a religious organization's land. A Roman Catholic religious order brought suit to prevent the pipeline from being erected across its land, claiming that this would be contrary to its deeply held religious beliefs regarding its obligations in caring for the Earth as God's creation. However, the Third Circuit held that RFRA cannot be used to circumvent the prescribed review procedure for challenging pipeline projects, under which an objecting party must first seek rehearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which the religious order had not done.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Rejected challenges to a natural gas pipeline project but remanded on one issue. Local governments and an environmental organization argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a proposed interstate pipeline expansion, but the Third Circuit rejected this argument. However, on a separate issue, the panel remanded to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with instructions to reconsider the petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a company surveying the ocean floor was properly apportioned 75 percent of the liability for an accident in which its underwater sonar device struck an offshore drilling rig's mooring line. The remaining 25 percent of the liability was allocated to the operator of the chartered vessel that was pulling the sonar device. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a citizen group's claim that a city failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove more than 250 trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed an order sustaining the city's demurrer, in relevant part.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The jury award of more than $43 mil. for the breach of a Joint Operating Agreement relating to the plugging and abandonment operation of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico was affirmed because the application of Louisiana Civil Code and interpretation of the contract was appropriate. No bad faith offset entitlement was found.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a case involving personal guaranties to secure real estate development loans, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit in favor of the lender is affirmed by an equally divided court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, arising after defendant revoked plaintiff-restaurant's alcoholic beverage license and related consent decrees and following state court proceedings on the matter, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where plaintiff's action is an independent, concurrent action challenging defendant's administrative actions and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought a group of drivers who allege that disseminating certain information contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database of inspection history and safety records pertaining to commercial motor vehicle operators, exceeds the agency's statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. section 31150, which governs the agency's disclosure obligations, the district court's grant of the FMCSA's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency's authority to include non-serious driver related safety violations in the database; and 2) the agency's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference and ultimately permissible under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

(United States Third Circuit) - In a section 1983 suit against several county entities and individuals, alleging various constitutional violations, including defendant's retaliation against plaintiff for publicly opposing of defendant's reelection as the President of the Moosic, Pennsylvania Borough Council, the district court's decision denying defendant's claim to qualified immunity is reversed where he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if plaintiff's allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of review challenging the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's 15-day suspension of an off-sale general license held by a CVS Pharmacy Store after an administrative law judge found the store clerk sold alcohol to a minor decoy, the Alcohol Beverage Control Appeals Board's reversal of the suspension based on California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 141 (Rule 141) that allows a law enforcement agency to use an underage decoy only in a fashion that promotes fairness, is annulled where: 1) Rule 141 is not ambiguous in requiring minor decoys to answer truthfully only questions about their ages; 2) substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge's factual finding that the decoy was not questioned about his age; and 3) Rule 141 does not provide CVS with a defense to the accusation it sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage buyer.

(United States First Circuit) - In a commercial action, brought by a commercial fisherman challenging various provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government is affirmed where plaintiff's suit was not filed within the thirty-day statute of limitations.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Investors who alleged that Pier 1 Imports was a trend-based fashion retailer with inventory that carried a significant markdown risk they failed to disclose were unable to adequately plead scienter.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of summary judgment in favor of an officer who used deadly force in an arrest was proper since there weren't issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness. There was no genuine issue of material fact.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. An Americans with Disabilities Act claim should not have been dismissed at the summary judgment phase because there were issues of material fact.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The County of Los Angeles successfully brought a conservatorship action under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that allows involuntary detention of persons who are dangerous or gravely disabled due to mental disorder. Conservatee appealed. The appeals court found no reversible error.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. D.C. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that she was not advised of her right to a jury trial, was not afforded an evidentiary hearing, was medicated without her consent and had ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court found no reversible error, but cautioned the trial court to state its findings as to the factors set out in Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. M.M. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that his trial did not begin within 25 days of his jury demand. The appeals court held that M.M. forfeited the contention because the delay was due to his own counsel’s requests to accommodate his schedule.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Texas Citizens Participation Act does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff appealed from judgment that dismissed her medical battery cause of action as time-barred. The appeals court held that the discovery rule applies to medical battery claims under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 as a matter of law.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In a statutory appraisal action arising from an acquisition by merger, an order modifying the appraisal opinion is reversed where the dispute had become moot by operation of a settlement agreement, and the purported modification of the appraisal opinion therefore had no legal effect.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Judgment of the Tax Court that plaintiff could not deduct from its taxable income either the amount it paid to the states or the legal expenses that it had incurred in the litigation, involving the acquisition of Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance companies, is affirmed as, under the application of the "origin of the claim" doctrine, costs incurred in defending the lawsuit were capital expenditures and so could not be deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses.