(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a wrongful death lawsuit, revived a claim that a construction company's faulty road repairs resulted in icing that led to a fatal motor vehicle crash. Reversed a summary judgment ruling. Also, addressed a dispute regarding the existence of removal jurisdiction.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissed claims by a group of chartered schools complaining about school funding practices but the case was vacated and remanded for dismissal because they lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims in the first instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

Phishing scammers need a little help scamming you!

A "buy two for the price of one" type of spammer.

We have a friend from Flipora, which we did not know we had... Oh sorry our mistake, iyaloo27@gmail.com is not our friend, he/she is a spammer and spammers are our enemy.

Poorly formatted, fake UPS Shipping service report, including malware.

An unknown purchase order inquiry from Captain Fabri. You can smell the virus a mile away.

BARR. Katie Richardson wants you to contact DR HILARRY NDUBEM. Do not contact any of these swindlers... ever!

A very lame attempt at defrauding Yahoo! users.

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

Ms Veronica Cordier, a 419 loan offer scammer that's by the book.

Cleverly disguised WebCam Spam from MySafeStreams.com

Larry the 419 scammer is sorry for invading your privacy.

Cliff is offering you the job of shipping manager assistant. The problem is, there is no job, so there is no salary, only a scammer waiting to take your money. This is the worst type of scammer, taking money from unemployed people.

A fake Facebook message, taking you to some online pharmacy site.

You need to contact Mr Mark Van Jas... but what if you are under the age of 18?

Stock market spammers are at it again. This time promoting the R.C.H.A stock.

A fake Chase e-mail that has PHISHING written all over it.

A fake Amazon order report, with a touch of false anti-virus peace of mind...

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that adjoining landowners were not entitled to injunctive relief against a company whose manufacturing plant had polluted the groundwater, in an action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a need for injunctive relief, because state environmental regulators had already sued the company and the two were working together on remedial steps. Affirmed the ruling below.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived property owners' claim that toxic dust and debris from the demolition of an abandoned factory migrated onto their properties, jeopardizing their health and the health of their tenants. Vacated a summary judgment ruling, in a lawsuit brought under federal statutes authorizing private rights of action for environmental contamination, and also under state law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Invalidated portions of an Environment Protection Agency final rule regarding waste streams from steam-electric power plants. Remanded to the agency for reconsideration in regard to legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate, in this challenge brought by environmentalists, utilities and others.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition denied. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry was permitted because the agency's interpretation of "risk" received deference and their decision not to regulate was authorized.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to prevent the rebuilding of an equestrian facility following a fire by filing a petition to have the Coastal Commission to revoke the required coastal development permit on the grounds that the regulation used to make the decision was not interpreted correctly. The appeals court disagreed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a district court summary judgment in favor of the defense and denying attorney fees in a copyright case involving a pornographer who alleged that infringing clips were stored and displayed on the defendant's website because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a safe harbor for material stored by users without the knowledge or input of the owner, who expeditiously removed infringing material when notified and did not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to infringing activity they had the right and ability to control.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a state law accounting claim and otherwise vacating and remanding the case of a musical group called Sly Slick & Wicked who challenged the collection of royalties during the renewal period of the copyright of their song, entitled Sho' Nuff, which had been sampled by Justin Timberlake and J. Cole because their repudiation of the original terms of the copyright many years earlier did not also constitute a repudiation of the renewal terms, resulting in a time-bar to their claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this copyright law case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs, professional photographers, alleged that defendants removed copyright information metadata from their photographs in violation of 17 USC section 1202(b)(1)-(3). Section 1202 requires defendants to have known the prohibited act would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Plaintiffs were unable to offer evidence to satisfy this requirement.