Latest Legal News

Case Summaries

Oil & Gas

[05/08] Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land
In a condemnation action under 15 U.S.C. section 717f(h) involving the construction of a natural-gas pipeline, the ruling below is affirmed over appellants'-owners challenge where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 455 does not apply to commissioners; 2) assuming that the section would apply, the commissioner would not be disqualified since disqualification is case specific; 3) the court would not consider an allegation of impropriety under section 455(a) since it was not raised until after the commission had made a decision; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the use of expert testimony since the commission's report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses.

[05/02] Islander E. Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy
Petition for review of a decision by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) denying a "water quality certification" for plaintiff to build a natural gas pipeline across the Long Island Sound is denied where: 1) record evidence supported the CTDEP's finding that plaintiff's proffered techniques for installing the proposed pipeline would violate state water quality standards; and 2) based on the record, the CTDEP's denial of certification was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. (Substituted opinion)

[05/02] Islander E. Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy
Petition for review of a decision by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) denying a "water quality certification" for plaintiff to build a natural gas pipeline across the Long Island Sound is denied where: 1) record evidence supported the CTDEP's finding that plaintiff's proffered techniques for installing the proposed pipeline would violate state water quality standards; and 2) based on the record, the CTDEP's denial of certification was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law".

[04/25] Parish Oil Co., Inc. v. Dillon Cos., Inc.
Under a now-amended Colorado unfair competition statute, a grocery store may sell gasoline below cost if such sales are conditioned on the purchase of enough groceries above cost that the entire series of transactions comes in at a profit. Consequently, a judgment in favor of competitors challenging such a practice is reversed.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

[12/05] Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.

More...