Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi Oct 2021

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …


Scientific Gerrymandering & Bifurcation, Katrina F. Kuh, Megan Edwards, Frederick A. Mcdonald Apr 2021

Scientific Gerrymandering & Bifurcation, Katrina F. Kuh, Megan Edwards, Frederick A. Mcdonald

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Environmental litigation must often examine the propriety of corporate conduct in areas of scientific complexity. In the second generation of climate nuisance suits, for example, allegations of corporate participation in the climate disinformation campaign are woven into plaintiffs’ claims. Toxic tort suits, currently and most notably in the Roundup and PFAS litigation, present another area of environmental litigation grappling with the legal ramifications of alleged corporate deception about scientific information. Toxic tort suits often surface allegations, and in many cases disturbing evidence, of what we term corporate “scientific gerrymandering”— corporate efforts to finesse, slow, or even mislead scientific understanding of …


The Case For An International Court Of Civil Justice, Maya Steinitz Dec 2018

The Case For An International Court Of Civil Justice, Maya Steinitz

Books

When multinational corporations cause mass harms to lives, livelihoods, and the environment in developing countries, it is nearly impossible for victims to find a court that can and will issue an enforceable judgment. In this work, Professor Maya Steinitz presents a detailed rationale for the creation of an International Court of Civil Justice (ICCJ) to hear such transnational mass tort cases. The world's legal systems were not designed to solve these kinds of complex transnational disputes, and the absence of mechanisms to ensure coordination means that victims try, but fail, to find justice in country after country, court after court. …


The Case For An International Court Of Civil Justice, Maya Steinitz Dec 2014

The Case For An International Court Of Civil Justice, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

We live in a world in which the victims of cross-border mass torts de facto (not de jure) have no court to turn to in order to pursue legal action against American multinational corporations when they are responsible for disasters. 1 The only way to provide a fair and legitimate process for both victims and corporations is to create an International Court of Civil Justice (ICCJ). This Essay seeks to start a conversation about this novel institutional solution. It lays out both a justice case, from the plaintiffs' viewpoint, and an efficiency case, from a corporate defendant's viewpoint, for why …


Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor Jan 2013

Ruckleshaus V. Sierra Club: Muddying The Waters Of Fee-Shifting In Federal Environmental Litigation , Jeanne A. Taylor

Pepperdine Law Review

In numerous federal environmental statutes, Congress gave plaintiffs the right to recover attorneys' fees when the court finds them "appropriate." In Ruckleshaus v. Sierra Club, the United States Supreme Court held that it was only "appropriate" to grant attorneys' fees when the plaintiff had at least partially prevailed on the merits. The decision ignored both the important role environmental groups play in the interpretation and development of regulatory programs through litigation and the ability of the lower courts to determine when attorneys' fees were "appropriate." The Court, instead, focused on the adversarial nature of such groups and the traditional American …


Disappearing Acts: How Parens Patriae Makes Private Environmental Suits Vanish In The Blink Of An Eye, Christopher Way Jan 2008

Disappearing Acts: How Parens Patriae Makes Private Environmental Suits Vanish In The Blink Of An Eye, Christopher Way

Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law

No abstract provided.


Elevated Pleading In Environmental Litigation, Carl W. Tobias Jan 1994

Elevated Pleading In Environmental Litigation, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The recent United States Supreme Court opinion in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit is critical to parties and attorneys who participate in environmental litigation. Leatherman proscribed the imposition of pleading requirements that are stricter than those ordinarily applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Such heightened pleading requirements compel plaintiffs to plead more facts, and courts can dismiss claims that fall short of the mark.

The Leatherman court considered civil rights actions alleging that municipalities are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Although Leatherman might seem of limited relevance to environmental lawsuits, its holding and …


Environmental Litigation And Rule 11, Carl W. Tobias Jan 1992

Environmental Litigation And Rule 11, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 has been the most controversial revision in the half-century history of the Federal Rules. Judges have applied amended Rule 11, which requires them to sanction lawyers and parties who do not conduct reasonable inquiries before filing papers, in over 1000 reported opinions, considerably more unreported determinations, and numerous informal contexts. The Rule has engendered much unnecessary satellite litigation and has been implemente4 inconsistently, while attorneys' fees remain the "sanction of choice" for violations. Rule 11 activity has especially disadvantaged civil rights plaintiffs and lawyers, whose lack of resources can make …


The Federal Government And Environmental Litigation, Kent Frizzell Jan 1972

The Federal Government And Environmental Litigation, Kent Frizzell

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.