...
首页> 外文期刊>Ecology law quarterly >County of San Mateo v. Chevron & City of Oakland v. BP: Are State Nuisance Claims for Climate-Change Damage Removable?
【24h】

County of San Mateo v. Chevron & City of Oakland v. BP: Are State Nuisance Claims for Climate-Change Damage Removable?

机译:San Mateo县诉Chevron案和奥克兰市诉BP案:可否消除对气候变化损害的国家骚扰索赔?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Removal is a statutory right. Although many justifications may warrant removal, they cannot upset the balance between state and federal power. Within the CAA, Congress expressly saved certain rights of action for individuals, local governments, and state governments outside the federal regulatory scheme. Congress intended for state adjudication outside the scope of the Act. While the CAA may still preempt state common law claims against GHG emitters for climate-change damages, preemption alone is not enough to warrant removal. States have the right under the well-pleaded complaint rule to interpret state nuisance law in this area and determine whether such claims are preempted.
机译:撤职是一项法定权利。尽管有许多理由可以消除,但它们不能破坏州与联邦权力之间的平衡。在CAA内部,国会明确保留了联邦监管计划之外的个人,地方政府和州政府的某些诉权。国会打算在该法案的范围之外进行州审判。尽管CAA可能仍优先于州普通法针对温室气体排放者的气候变化损害索赔,但仅凭优先权还不足以保证将其清除。各国有权根据适当的申诉规则解释这方面的国家滋扰法,并确定是否应避免此类要求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号