• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Environmental law >CASE SUMMARIES
【24h】

CASE SUMMARIES

机译：案例摘要

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Various counties from different states (collectively, "Counties")1 sued group company car manufacturer Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Volkswagen")2 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.3 Counties sought to impose penalties on Volkswagen for violation of their laws prohibiting tampering with emissions control systems in vehicles. The district court agreed with Volkswagen that the Clean Air Act (CAA)4 preempted Counties' claims. Counties appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, ultimately concluding that the CAA does prevent Counties from enforcing their anti-tampering laws against Volkswagen for pre-sale vehicles but does not prevent such enforcement regarding post-sale vehicles. Between 2009 and 2015, Volkswagen installed "defeat devices" in new cars for the purpose of evading federally mandated emissions standards. Volkswagen later updated those devices post sale to better avoid detection and compliance. Volkswagen sold approximately 585,000 new vehicles containing a defeat device in the United States during this period. Meanwhile Volkswagen also deliberately misled regulators and consumers by marketing the cars as "clean diesel." After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered the violations in 2017, Volkswagen settled with the EPA for civil and criminal violations of the CAA. Volkswagen's criminal plea agreement did not protect Volkswagen from prosecution by state or local governments. Volkswagen's civil settlement similarly did not release Volkswagen of liability from any state or local government (except California). Volkswagen's resulting liability exceeded $20 billion. Concurrent with the federal litigation, states and counties brought separate lawsuits against Volkswagen for violating state and local anti-tampering laws. In 2016, the multidistrict litigation judicial panel transferred these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2017, the district court dismissed a suit brought by Wyoming and held that the CAA preempted the state's claim that Volkswagen violated Wyoming law by installing the defeat device in pre-sale vehicles. Subsequently, Counties amended their respective complaints to allege facts relating to both Volkswagen's tampering with pre-sale vehicles and post-sale vehicles. The district court then held (1) the CAA expressly preempts state and local government efforts from applying anti-tampering laws to pre-sale vehicles, and (2) the CAA impliedly preempts such efforts regarding post-sale vehicles. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the District Court's preemption analysis de novo.
机译：来自不同状态的各个县（统称，“县”）1起诉集团公司汽车制造商大众汽车厂家大众及其子公司（集体，“大众”）2在美国地区法院为加州北区的北部地区寻求惩罚罚款在大众汽车上违反其法律，禁止在车辆中篡改排放控制系统。地区法院同意大众，即清洁空中法案（CAA）4抢先县的索赔。县上诉。第九次电路部分肯定并部分予以逆转，最终结论认为CAA确实阻止县对销售前车辆的大众汽车进行反篡改法律，但不会阻止销售后车辆的执法。 2009年至2015年间，大众汽车在新车中安装了“击败设备”，以逃避联邦政府的排放标准。 Volkswagen后来更新了这些设备的发布销售，以更好地避免检测和遵守。大众汽车在此期间销售了大约585,000辆含有击败设备的新车辆。与此同时，大众汽车还通过营销汽车作为“干净的柴油”，故意误导监管机构和消费者。在美国环境保护局（EPA）之后发现了2017年的违法行为，大众汽车与EPA定居了CAA的民事和刑事违规行为。大众刑事辩护协议并没有保护大众免受国家或地方政府的起诉。大众汽车的民事定居者同样没有从任何州或地方政府（加利福尼亚州除外）发布大众责任。大众汽车所造成的责任超过了20亿美元。与联邦诉讼，国家和县同时提起了对大众汽车的单独诉讼，以违反国家和地方反拖掠法。 2016年，多渠道诉讼司法小组将这些行动转移到加州北部地区的美国地区法院。 2017年，地区法院驳回了怀俄明带来的西装，并认为CAA抢占国家通过在售前车辆中安装失败设备侵犯了大众侵犯了怀俄明法律。随后，县修订了各自的投诉，以指称与大众汽车与售前车辆和销售后车辆有关的事实。然后，该地区法院举行（1）CAA明确地抢先州和地方政府努力将反篡改法律应用于售前车辆，（2）CAA暗示抢先售后车辆的努力。第九回路审查了地区法院的抢占分析De Novo。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Environmental law》 |2021年第3期|801-879|共79页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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