(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.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived environmental organizations' lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Forest Service to ban hunters' use of lead ammunition, which is ingested by scavenger wildlife species and causes lead poisoning. Held that the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was justiciable. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied. A petition by environmental associations whose members live and work in areas affected by the Atlantic Sunrise Project allowing natural gas pipeline expansion was denied because challenges to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission couldn't submit the deferential standard of review of their determinations and due to binding circuit precedent.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(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 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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defense in a copyright case where the assignee of certain photographs tried to sue the owner for infringement for exceeding its licensed use of certain photographs taken by photographers who had a non-exclusive licensing agreement with them because the Copyright Act doesn't permit prosecution of infringement suits by assignees that have never been the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to the intellectual property.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Largely affirming the decision against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke in a suit brought by the estate of Marvin Gaye over copyright infringement in the song Blurred Lines, but reversing the district court's decision to overturn the jury's general verdict in favor of certain parties because the defendants had waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury's general verdicts.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of rapper Jay-Z and other defendants in the case of copyright infringement claims brought by the heir to an Egyptian composer's copyright on the arrangement of a song used as a sample in the hit single 'Big Pimpin' because the heri lacked standing to bring copyright claims. The rights had been transferred by an earlier agreement and Egyptian law recognizes a transferable right of adaptation.

(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) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in relevant part, finding that federal copyright law largely preempts California's Resale Royalties Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 986, which grants artists a right to five percent of the proceeds on any resale of their artwork under specified circumstances.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of copyright infringement. In an amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the decision after a jury trial that musician Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris Jr.'s song Blurred Lines, the world's best-selling single in 2013, infringed the copyright in a 1977 Marvin Gaye song, Got To Give It Up. The panel also held that the award of actual damages and infringers' profits and its running royalty were proper.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an Egyptian musical composer's heir could not sue the rapper Jay-Z and other defendants for copyright infringement. Jay- Z had sampled the composer's 1957 musical arrangement in one of his hit songs. Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, concluding that the composer's heir lacked standing.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees in a Copyright and Lanham Act lawsuit after they prevailed by asserting a collateral estoppel defense. Affirmed the award of fees.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the plaintiff failed to name a single instance of infringement or breach of the terms of his licensing agreement with the stock photo company from which Scholastica obtained his photos, the panel affirms the district court’s dismissal.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

All of today's top pop music news stories

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Natural Gas Act. Landowners along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline brought this action disputing the constitutionality of various provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Agreeing with the district court, the Fourth Circuit held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the landowners ought to have brought their claims through the agency review process laid out in the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the owner of a tugboat was also considered to be operating an oil barge that the tugboat was moving at the time the barge collided with a bridge, resulting in an oil spill in the Mississippi River. Affirmed partial summary judgment for the federal government in its lawsuit seeking to recover cleanup costs under the Oil Pollution Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a citizen group's claim that a city failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove more than 250 trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed an order sustaining the city's demurrer, in relevant part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bunker (marine fuel) supplier was not entitled to maritime liens against two chartered vessels to which it had physically provided marine fuel for which it was not paid. Affirmed the district court, in a case raising the question whether subcontractors were entitled to maritime liens.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an energy company could not proceed with its claim that Illinois environmental regulators lacked jurisdiction over its handling of hazardous‐waste acid that it transported into the state. Affirmed a dismissal based on claim and issue preclusion, among other doctrines.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an industry challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. A number of industry trade groups argued that the California regulations designed to reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions violate the Commerce Clause or other parts of the federal constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising from a leak in an underground fuel storage tank, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it did not owe coverage because the insured had breached the Cooperation Clause in its policy, among other things.