Sentences with phrase «citizen suit against»

Prosecuted a federal ESA citizen suit against the United States Department of the Interior regarding the uplisting of the Delta Smelt;

In January 2004, Riverkeeper initiated a citizen suit against two of the world's largest oil companies for the largest urban oil spill — right in the heart of New York City.

Since its first boat patrol into Newtown Creek over eight years ago, Riverkeeper has established itself as the leading pollution enforcer on Newtown Creek, exemplified by its citizen suits against oil companies, cement manufacturers and other polluters.

Not exact matches

By selling the bonds to Monaco, investors were trying to get around the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, «The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.»

For example, in Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the high court ruled against a Louisiana resident bondholder on 11th Amendment grounds even though it did not specifically preclude suits by a state's citizens.

And 15 percent of the suits against Citizens challenged the company's denial of responsibility for the claim.

Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video - on - demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it.

Citizens» chief financial officer, Jennifer Montero, on April 11 acknowledged that the majority of lawsuits against Citizens has «shifted» to Hurricane Irma, but company spokesman Michael Peltier said it's too early to know whether AOB suits would increase again after the Irma suits recede.

Suits against state - owned Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the second largest insurer, increased 32.5 percent — from 2,323 to 3,078 — between the first quarters of 2017 and 2018.

And the court has given states broad immunity from being sued in any court for money damages — for example, for infringing a patent or discriminating against older or disabled state employees — even though the Constitution limits this immunity only to suits in federal court by a citizen of a different state.

UTAG's request for the constitution of Governing Councils followed a suit by private citizen, Supt. Kofi Kwayera against the University of Education, Winneba, and the Education Ministry over the unlawful extension of the school's Governing Council's tenure.

Another way to expedite permanent placement for neglected animals is to use statutory provisions that allow a private citizen or organization to file a civil suit for an injunction against an accused animal abuser, thereby allowing the Court to terminate the defendant's interest in the animals.

UPDATE: CHEMTRAILS CONFIRMED: Climate Scientist Admits Jets Are «Dumping Aerosols» Original Post: Geoengineering Watch 4/1/2014: Four thousand Swedish Citizens file $ 60 million class Action suit against Swedish government for not responding to questions about covert geoengineering, aka Chemtrails.

«Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.»

«A citizen of Maine filing a suit in state court against a foreign country for an incident that happened over 25 years ago.»

Our team has worked with US federal, state and local government agencies to defend against governmental enforcement actions and citizen suits, response cost litigation, indemnification claims, toxic tort class actions, imminent and substantial endangerment litigation, and criminal environmental claims.

The legal team at Bick Law has a wealth of experience protecting companies against «citizen suits» brought under state and federal environmental laws.

Siskinds filed the class action suit against Arctic Glacier in September 2008, alleging that the company had misrepresented itself as a «good corporate citizen».

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

Among other areas, our litigation experience in the environmental area includes governmental and private - party actions under CERCLA (including serving as lead counsel for PRP groups at major Superfund sites throughout the United States), citizen suits under RCRA, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, claims for property damage and personal injury arising from industrial emissions or environmental contamination, and defending clients against state and federal governmental enforcement actions.

Prosecuted a federal ESA citizen suit claim against the USDOI for alleged statutory violations in connection with the listing of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat.

The Court of Claims was established in 1975 by the Ohio General Assembly, giving citizens the right to file civil suits against state agencies.

As local counsel - defended client against a Clean Air Act citizen suit involving preconstruction permit requirements under the New Source Review program.

It is alleged by the defendant in error in this case that the plea to the jurisdiction was a sufficient plea; that it shows, on inspection of its allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri; that, upon this record, it must appear to this court that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States as defined and granted by the Constitution, because it was not a suit by a citizen of one State against a citizen of another State.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

In these cases, suits may still be maintained against collectors by citizens of the same state.

While lawsuits stemming from NV's Health Insurance Exchange have captured headlines in recent months, the hundreds of suits filed against private citizens each year receive less attention.