ILNews

Climate litigation focus of lecture

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s section that highlights news from law schools in Indiana. While we have always covered law school news and will continue to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we’ll gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alums, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Rebecca Berfanger, rberfanger@ibj.com, along with contact information for any follow up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

Civil Litigation as a Tool for Regulating Climate Change will be the topic of the 25th Annual Monsanto Lecture on Tort Law & Jurisprudence at Valparaiso University School of Law on Feb. 18.

“The conference will explore the interlinked policy, science, legal, and political questions of utilizing the American litigation system, and particularly its tort theories of liability, to regulate climate change,” according to a statement on the school’s website.

There are three major federal cases that have been filed seeking damages due to companies alleged to have caused global warming.

The United States District Court, Southern District of New York judge who handled Connecticut v. American Electric Power, Co., a public nuisance lawsuit filed by eight state attorneys general, the city of New York, and three land trusts against six electric power companies, granted summary judgment to defendants in that case. That decision was reversed by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed Dec. 6 to hear this case in the spring.

Two other cases could be affected by the Connecticut case.

In Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, property owners filed a lawsuit in Mississippi against Murphy Oil USA, claiming its contribution to climate change contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the 5th Circuit initially reversed. However, the full 5th Circuit agreed to hear the matter en banc but has had difficulty getting a quorum. Meanwhile, plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order the 5th Circuit to reinstate the case.

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation involved residents of an Inupiat Eskimo village in Alaska who must relocate due to global warming at a cost of $95 to $400 million. That case was dismissed by the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and is awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issues in these cases and other global warming concerns in litigation will be discussed by professor Daniel Farber, director of the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the University of California at Berkeley; professor Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University School of Law; professor Daniel Bodansky of the School of Sustainability and School of Law at Arizona State University; and Brent Newell, general counsel of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment in San Francisco.

The conference is $100 for practicing attorneys and professionals, $50 for employees of non-profit organizations, and there is no charge for students.

To register, contact Jo Ann Campbell at (219) 465-7829 or (888) 825-7652; fax: (219) 465-7808; or e-mail: litigation.conference@valpolaw.net.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT