Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Bucks County v. BP America Inc.

Geography
Year
2025
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2025
Status
Reply brief filed by appellant.
Docket number
1525 CD 2025
Court/admin entity
United StatesState CourtsPennsylvania Commonwealth Court (Pa. Commw. Ct.)
Case category
Adaptation (US)Actions seeking money damages for losses (US)Common Law Claims (US)
Principal law
United StatesCivil ConspiracyUnited StatesFailure to WarnUnited StatesState Law—NegligenceUnited StatesState Law—NuisanceUnited StatesState Law—Trespass
At issue
Pennsylvania county's lawsuit seeking to hold fossil fuel industry defendants liable for impacts allegedly arising from the defendants' "disinformation campaign" regarding their products' contribution to climate change.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
05/29/2026
Reply brief filed by appellant.
Reply
04/15/2026
Amicus curiae brief filed by Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Amicus Motion/Brief
04/15/2026
Amicus curiae brief filed by General (Retired) Richard B. Myers and Admiral (Retired) Michael G. Mullen.
Amicus Motion/Brief
04/15/2026
Amicus curiae brief filed by Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform et al.
Amicus Motion/Brief
04/15/2026
Appellees' brief filed.
Brief
04/15/2026
Brief filed by amici curiae the National Association of Manufacturers and Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association in support of appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
04/15/2026
Amicus curiae brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellees.
Amicus Motion/Brief
04/02/2026
Application for stay denied.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court denied appellees' motion to stay proceedings in Bucks County's appeal of the dismissal of its climate change case against fossil fuel industry defendants. The court rejected the appellees' assertion that a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the case, and noted that the appellees failed to assert that they would suffer substantial injury absent a stay. The Commonwealth Court also found that a stay would "unnecessarily delay" its decision on the merits of the appeal and any final resolution of claims before the trial court.

Summary

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance