Environmental Law Portal

Welcome to the Beveridge & Diamond Environmental Law Portal.

Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers in seven U.S. offices focus on environmental and natural resource law, litigation and dispute resolution. We help clients around the world resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues relating to their products, facilities, and operations. 

Subscribe for updates via:

Meet the Contributors

Topics

Recent Posts

Click here to learn more about us

Showing 150 posts by Daniel M. Krainin.

EPA’s Plan to Implement Trump’s Proposed Budget Signals Massive Change

President Trump’s recent budget proposal and a more detailed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) memo regarding its implementation portend a potentially seismic shift in federal environmental priorities and programs. The President’s “Budget Blueprint,” which summarizes his request to Congress for fiscal year 2018 appropriations, seeks to cut nearly one-third ($2.6 billion) of EPA’s funding compared with current levels.  It would eliminate more than 50 programs, defund the Clean Power Plan, and eliminate 3,200 full-time jobs.  EPA has begun preparation to implement Trump’s plan, signaling the dramatic changes that may be seen at the agency should Congress approve a budget substantially similar to the administration’s proposal. Read More ›

DC High Court Adopts Daubert Approach to Expert Testimony

In a direct victory for mobile phone manufacturers and service providers, and with implications for any other case involving expert testimony in the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia’s highest court abandoned the nearly century-old Frye test for admitting expert testimony in favor of the Daubert approach as embodied in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  See Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, No. 14-CV-1350 (D.C. Oct. 20, 2016).  The decision to adopt the federal standard—following 39 states that have done so—came in an interlocutory appeal in litigation in which Plaintiffs allege long-term exposure to mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors.  The newly adopted standard likely means an uphill battle for Plaintiffs and their causation experts in this litigation.  Read More ›

D.C. High Court Adopts Daubert Approach to Expert Testimony in Win for Wireless Industry

In an immediate victory for mobile phone manufacturers and service providers, and with implications for any other case involving expert testimony in the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia’s highest court abandoned the nearly century-old Frye test for admitting expert testimony in favor of the Daubert approach as embodied in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  See Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, No. 14-CV-1350 (D.C. Oct. 20, 2016).  The decision to adopt the federal standard—following 39 states that have done so—came in an interlocutory appeal in litigation in which Plaintiffs allege long-term exposure to mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors.  The newly adopted standard likely means an uphill battle for Plaintiffs and their causation experts in this litigation.  Read More ›

California Appellate Court Upholds “Every Exposure” Theory

Deferring to the role of a jury in resolving questions of competing scientific theories, a California appeals court upheld a trial court’s ruling allowing expert testimony based on the “every exposure” theory, calling it “the subject of legitimate scientific debate.”  See Davis v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). Read More ›

Fifth Circuit Affirms Exclusion of Expert Testimony Tying Gasoline to AML

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony that exposure to gasoline caused acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”) in a former gas station attendant and mechanic, highlighting the importance of the distinction between a product and its component parts in exposure cases.  See Burst v. Shell Oil Co., 2016 WL 2989261 (5th Cir. May 23, 2016).  (Our prior coverage of the trial court ruling is available here.) Read More ›

Union Carbide Corp. Not Liable for Property Damage From 1984 Bhopal Leak

In the most recent case stemming from the 1984 chemical plant leak in Bhopal, India, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit further clarified the circumstances in which an entity other than the owner or operator of a site may be liable at common law for a chemical release at that site.  See Sahu v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 14-3087-cv (2d Cir. May 24, 2016).  Plaintiffs claimed property damage from leaks from a waste storage facility at the Union Carbide India Limited (“UCIL”) plant in Bhopal, and sued Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”), a majority stockholder in UCIL, for nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and negligence. Read More ›

New York Court Dismisses Chemical Sensitivity Claims for Lack of Causation

Illustrating the difficulty in pursuing a multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) claim, a New York appeals court upheld dismissal of Plaintiff’s toxic tort claim because he failed to establish a causal link between chemical exposure and his symptoms. See Abrams v. Related, L.P., 2016 BL 91070 (N.Y. App. Div. March 24, 2016). Read More ›

Eighth Circuit Rejects Bifurcated TCE Class Certification

In a case that highlights the complexity of structuring class actions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a trial court’s decision to certify a class claiming damages from trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination.  See Ebert v. Gen Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2016).  The Eighth Circuit held that the trial court abused its discretion by narrowing the putative class and the issues before the court. Read More ›

Vermont’s Statewide MTBE Claims Time-Barred

In an opinion that reinforces the importance of the statute of limitations to defendants, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s decision that the State’s claims of a “generalized injury” from methyl tertiary butyl ether (“MTBE”) groundwater contamination were time-barred under Vermont law. See State of Vermont v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2016 VT 61 (May 27, 2016).  The State brought suit in 2014, alleging that gasoline refiners and marketers were liable for knowingly distributing gasoline containing the oxygenate, which then leaked into groundwater across the state. Read More ›

Beveridge & Diamond Secures Clemency on Behalf of Pro Bono Client

On August 3, Sarah Kettenmann, an associate in Beveridge & Diamond’s New York Office, secured clemency on behalf of a pro bono client of the firm. President Obama commuted the client’s sentence to expire on December 1, 2016, eight years earlier than the client’s original release date. Read More ›