News
[09/03]
Goats rescued after 2 days on 6-inch ledge in Mont
[09/03]
Earl weakens but still powerful as it scoots by NC
[09/03]
Dolphins herded in Japanese cove but none killed
More...
Articles
Agrochemicals
Agrochemicals are the chemicals used to manage the growth and production of agricultural products. These include herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and hormones. Herbicides kill unwanted plants that interfere with the growth of wanted crops or which can harm grazing livestock. Pesticides include insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides. Insecticides control insects that destroy crops, inhibit their growth, or make them unmarketable. Insecticides are also used in livestock production. Fungicides control fungi that can also harm crops. Rodenticides are chemicals that control mice and rats, and sometimes, other wildlife. Soil is usually conditioned by adding nutrients in the form of fertilizer. At times, hormones and other chemicals may be added to the feed of livestock to produce desired results.
More...
An Overview of Key Federal Environmental Laws
Did you know that there are over ten major federal laws that deal with protecting the environment and the health and safety of U.S. residents? Additionally, this does not include the multitude of other federal acts, rules, and regulations that deal with the environment. Beyond the federal laws, rules, and regulations there are also scores of environmental laws that have been enacted by the states or local governments. The following is a summary of the major federal environmental laws.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[09/03]
Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas
In plaintiff's suit against a city and various city officials in their official and individual capacities, claiming that several of the city's ordinances related to controlling deer population, violate the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and that the ordinances are preempted by Kentucky state statutes and administrative regulations, district court's judgment in affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is not preempted; 2) the Field-Dressing Ordinance is not preempted by Chapter 150; 3) although 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:-015 has preemptive force and the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is preempted insofar as it purports to ban deer-feeding within the curtilage of Fort Thomas homes, the ordinance is not preempted in its entirety, as it is a legitimate exercise of municipal authority as applied to deer-feeding outside the curtilage of the home; 4) plaintiff's substantive due process challenge to the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is rejected; and 5) the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague.
[09/01]
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
In a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to eighteen amendments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing regulations, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM failed to address concerns raised by its own experts, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and state agencies; and 2) there was resounding evidence from agency experts that the eighteen amendments to the BLM's grazing regulations may affect listed species and their habitat. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act claim under the framework and with the deference set forth in Chevron.
[08/31]
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
[08/25]
Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by digging up and removing endangered plant species, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where "areas under Federal jurisdiction" in section 9 of the ESA did not include the privately-owned land at issue here.
More...
|
