Search for: "Juliana v. United States" Results 21 - 40 of 72
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2020, 8:43 am by Paula Lombardi
Recently, two cases State of Netherlands v Urgenda (December 20, 2019) and Juliana v. [read post]
12 May 2024, 11:54 am by Stuart Kaplow
United States has come to an unceremonious end and all Americans should be concerned. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 11:43 am by Randy Marse, Jr.
On November 10, 2016, Judge Ann Aiken, a federal district judge in Oregon, issued a remarkable environmental law decision in which she found that a climate system “capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental constitutional right.[1] Juliana v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 11:43 am by Liskow & Lewis
On November 10, 2016, Judge Ann Aiken, a federal district judge in Oregon, issued a remarkable environmental law decision in which she found that a climate system “capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental constitutional right.[1] Juliana v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 11:43 am by Randy Marse, Jr.
On November 10, 2016, Judge Ann Aiken, a federal district judge in Oregon, issued a remarkable environmental law decision in which she found that a climate system “capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental constitutional right.[1] Juliana v. [read post]
17 Jan 2020, 12:42 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs in Juliana v. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 8:39 am
Andrew Craig Blackmore, Rediscovering the origins and inclusion of the public trust doctrine in South African environmental law: A speculative analysis Case NoteMelissa Powers, Juliana v United States: The next frontier in US climate mitigation? [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 3:09 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
The Court has, however, reviewed the record and takes particular note of the recent orders issued by the United States Supreme Court on July 30, 2018, and November 2, 2018, as well as the extraordinary Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. [read post]